Letters to the Editor
Walter M
Published Letters: 12
-
Eyes on the Prize
[Read the article: A genuine political sea change?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You may be right about an incipient sea change, but will we come to see a foreign policy that can create the conditions of a sustainable peace (i.e. an end to the occupations of Iraq and Palestinian land; a general settlement with some de-militarization of the Middle East; and reconstruction of Iraq--i.e. reparations); an environmental policy that can avert global cataclysm; and the abolition of torture and gulag, and the restoration of habeas corpus and the Geneva Conventions and constitutional government?
Or will we see, as we did after Watergate, the restoration of Imperialism Lite?
We mustn't confuse the necessary with the possible, but neither should we be be too ready to take off our boots.
-
The risks of leaving
[Read the article: The risks of staying]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The real risks to the American Empire of leaving Iraq are 1) the passing of control of the oil back to Iraqi hands, which means now that the Shia would control the petroleum treasure of both Iraq and Iran, and would be in a position to threaten the status quo even in Saudi Arabia; the leverage, over China and Japan for example, that comes with the oil would be gone; and 2) if the other occupation (i.e. of the West Bank) is not ended as well, momentum will be added to the international movement to end that occupation as well, and to kick the United States out of the region altogether. But the first risk at least can't be talked about because this would entail acknowledging why American forces are in the region to begin with, another taboo subject.
And there is a third risk, not only to the Empire but to the American and Israeli people, and we would do well to recognize it. It is a corollary of risk 2): If the occupation of Iraq is ended, but not of Palestine, the likelihood of the war coming to the American homeland (and to Israel) may if anything be increased. All the war propaganda to this effect has a point. Ending the occupation of Iraq is necessary but not sufficient. To make peace today requires a settlement extending beyond Iraq and Iran.
Walter Miale
-
A noble enterprise
[Read the article: After everything we did for them]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In Heart of Darkness, which is set in King Leopold's Congo, Joseph Conrad alludes with sublime irony to the general feeling back home that the colonial enterprise in Africa was some sort of great and noble charitable undertaking. For example, Marlow's aunt (Marlow is the narrator and protagonist) regarded him, since he had determined work as a riverboat captain in the Congo, as "something like an emissary of light, something like a lower sort of apostle."
-
Antiwar, small government conservatives
[Read the article: Al-Qaida does it, too]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn, re: "The idea that there were more than a tiny handful of conservatives who thought 'the war was wrong' is absurd on its face, but Noonan's claim that conservatives objected to 'expanding governmental authority and power' is so false that it does not belong in any newspaper..."
Doesn't this unduly minimize conservatism of the "paleoconservative" sort? For example, The American Conservative journal, libertarians including some at the Cato Institute, the conservatives signers, including Richard Viguerie, of a declaration to abolish torture and restore constitutional government, and antiwar conservatives such as Justin Raimondo and even Pat Buchanan?
There is a very interesting compendium of articles on "What is Left? What is Right? Does it Matter?" at
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_08_28/cover.html
-
Another reason for reporters biases
[Read the article: The role of political reporters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Pleasing the boss.
Walter Miale
-
Are the Democrats cowardly or merely looking after themselves?
[Read the article: Conceding John McCain's "toughness" on national security]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn, this is another of your consistently superlative articles. They exemplify real patriotism.
Yes, McAuliffe's strategy is a blueprint for another loss. But there seems to be a misapprehension when you write:
"That's why there has been so little contrast between the two parties on foreign policy and national security issues -- because most Democrats believe that the wisest course of action is to become replicas of Republicans on national security policy as a means of eliminating those issues from consideration. The 'strategy' has been as ineffective as it has been craven."
Isn't the reason for the consensus on national security and other litmus issues more likely just that the Democrats are beholden to their primary constituency? namely big corporations (especially the dominant military sector), big money, and big media.
The Democrats, like the Republicans, consistently adopt positions that are opposed to the wishes of the majority of Americans. They have another, more important, constituency. And it does not want any of those "huge, juicy targets" hit.
Isn't the problem in the cases of people like Terry McAuliffe not that they are "cowardly", but that they, like the Democratic party generally, are part of the imperial consensus?
Doesn't this call for some rethinking?
With gratitude and good wishes,
Walter Miale