Mr. Estes, I’m sure you’ll find plenty of aggrieved comments about the bit where you address a black man as “boy,” “son,” but it was the last line of your epistle that caught my attention:
I sure as hell don’t want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle. (Emphasis mine)
This emphasis on “final battles” betrays you as an End-Timer. You have struck a trifecta here: authoritarian paranoia, religious clash-of-civilizations rhetoric, and Teh Stupid™.
Mr. Estes, it may surprise you to learn that permanent wars and clashes of civilizations are not in the role of the commander-in-chief as envisaged by the founders; the Constitutional articles do not contain such a job description.
Indeed, it would seem to me that in the age of nuclear weapons and wackaloons bent on starting Armageddon, pursuit of domestic tranquility would rather put the making of peace in his job description. And it is with those wackaloons that you stand, Mr. Estes.
The 9/11 hijackers thought they could initiate the End Times that Tuesday, and folks like yourself have been itching to meet them there ever since. Your fear is palpable in the letter, but so is your excitement. You want the end of the world and don’t care how many get hurt in the process.
For there is one thing notably missing in your piece, Mr. Estes: a description of how surging any number of troops into Afghanistan leads to victory. How can America win if our “partner” elects himself Mahmoud Ahmedinejad style? And since there are practical, logistical limits to how many troops we can support in Afghanistan, how do you propose we reach anything near the troop levels that counterinsurgency manuals recommend?
I see no answers, only fear and loathing.
I beg you to educate yourself.
