In the week prior to the election, Orson Scott Card — author of “Ender’s Game”, which I’ve read and re-read into probably double-digits — wrote an unexpected article in his local paper on the Iraq War / War on Terrorism, and the coming national elections. I heard of it during a brief tune-in to Rush Limbaugh. Rush liked the article because it advocated against giving Democrats control of Congress, based on the their support of withdrawal. Because it was Card (not Rush), I made a mental note to google the article when I got the chance.
I just got the chance. I found Card’s article quite … new. Card is a strong mind, and a brilliant writer, and he combines both in presenting a portrait of the cultural and historical forces at play in the Middle East that wraps the knowledge of an amateur historian into an easily readable narrative. He taught me a lot about the situation at hand, and also offered several new ideas that I had not heard before.
Card isn’t a political essayist, and his article isn’t perfect. I found the material inadequate to support his main thesis, but of high interest nevertheless. But I’ll let you make up your own minds. I’m posting this because in the context of a very stale national discussion on Iraq, Card’s article deserves a wider readership than it seems to have had so far.
For the time-challenged, on the flip I re-post the single most novel idea I found in the article, a discussion of American military options related to Iran.