Letters to the Editor
anonny
Published Letters: 124 Editor's Choice: 13
-
There is more craziness yet to discover
[Read the article: Answering terror with terror]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm glad to see the full story is finally coming to light, almost 7 years after the insanity began and a full 4 years after Abu Ghriab photos were first published. But consider two things:
1) Almost all of this was known at the time, just ignored.
2) There are other crazy things that were done in late 2001 that we still haven't recognized as crazy.
On the first point, who remembers John Walker Lindh, the "American Taliban"? Captured on November 25, 2001, he was subjected to severe torture and death threats before signing a false confession. His treatment, and the treatment of Afghan POWs (those fighting and those picked up at random) was documented at the time, available for all to see in reports from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, but no U.S. media outlets reported this and few in America seemed interested. However, it was obvious even then that:
a) People in Afghanistan who may have been legitmately defending their country against an armed invasion were being captured and treated as terrorists -- the U.S. did not recognize any of them as P.O.W.s as the 3rd Geneva Convention requires.
b) The so-called "Northern Alliance" of various warlords, who the U.S. paid to fight the Taliban, had practices at least as vile as those of the Taliban.
c) The vast majority of people being captured and tortured were not members of Al Qaeda, and the majority weren't even associated with the Taliban. Many, perhaps most, were innocents turned over to the U.S. in exchange for per-head bounty fees. All were severely mistreated in violation of the 4th Geneva Convention.
If, in late 2001 or 2002, you brought this up, even to so-called liberals like Kevin Drum, you were told to go away. "War is Hell". "People die in War". In sum, we knew back in late 2001 that the US had adopted the most evil war waging practices, but we as a nation didn't care.
The second point, though, is that there is one thing we as a nation still aren't ready to recognize: that the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was unnecessary and in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Charter. Even today most commenters assume that the invasion was justified as a response to 9-11. But was it?
If you go back to news reports prior to the Afghan invasion you may be surprised to learn that the U.S. government demanded that the Afghan government hand over bin Laden and in response the Afghan government had offered to either a) extradict bin Laden to the U.S. if proof were offered of his involvement, or b) extradict bin Laden to a neutral 3rd country for independent trial. Americans were so clouded with emotion -- and itching for a war -- that few Americans even entertained the idea that the Afghan government's response was entirely appropriate and legal.
Yes, the Taliban was, and is, a nasty piece of work, and certainly that fact helped the drumbeat to war. And perhaps if the U.S. had attempted to, and succeeded in, replacing the Taliban with a decent secular government then we wouldn't be discussing this now. But there was no legal justification for that invasion. The war crimes began when the bombing did.
-
@Robert Franklin
[Read the article: McCain wants surge in Afghanistan, but with what troops?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There are over a million people in the U.S. military in one form of service or another (a fact that by itself should be a major political issue, but of course no one can question "defense" spending). We had over 500,000 involved in the Gulf War. So why have we strained our military over a 150,000-troop occupation in Iraq?
The answer has to do with the Pentagon's military model. First, you have a large permanent army/navy/air force. These troops are committed throughout the world in countries on every continent. The rationale for having so many troops in, say, Germany, is no longer clear, but for political and economic reasons the Pentagon must keep them there.
Second, you have the reserves, a force that is intended to be called up on a temporary basis for short periods of time, as with the Gulf War. Because the permanent army is already fully committed to "peacetime obligations" any actual war of any size requires the temporary reserves, either to go to war or to backfill the permenent troops.
The problem comes when the "temporary" war drags on and on without end. The rational solution is to treat the Iraq occupation the same as we do the permanent bases in Europe -- include it as part of the Pentagon budget and in the planning for the permanent troop levels. But to do that would require either a) admitting that the "defense" budget is now $200B higher than the already absurd $600B, or b) cutting back on troop allocations elsewhere. Although (b) would make the most sense -- you can't reasonably justify the massive number of troops in, say, Korea or Kosovo, let alone Britain -- it's just not politcally acceptable to admit that we don't need them.
So, instead we keep the occupation going with the "temporary" reserves. But, the "temporary" reserves are meant to be used for unforeseen wars and war situations -- if you are using them for a permanent occupation then you have no reserves left for the next war that comes up.
-
Just a misstatement
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He probably meant "... join me in Washington by being in the Senate."
It's hard to know when a candidate thinks the game is lost, but I can't imagine that McCain thinks it's over yet. He may realize he's a long shot, given the Bush catastrophe, but just by being on the ballot you have a chance due to the unexpected.
Let's check back with McCain's temperature in mid-September. It was about that time in 1984 and 1996 when Mondale and Dole, respectively, realized that they had no chance, and their approach changed as a result.