Letters to the Editor
chiefpayne
Published Letters: 325 Editor's Choice: 2
-
re: Let's unpack this a little.
[Read the article: The rantings of hateful leftists and Arab paranoids]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]@Iokannan in the Well
"Um, no-one paying actual attention was/is surprised by this given the players and rhetorical devices employed."
Ok...so we and others saw it coming.
"In aid of what ultimate geo-political/security goals would the US need permanent bases in the Asia Minor and just west of greater Persia? Additionally, have you actually studied the terrain? How exactly are these bases supposed to be kept supplied? The Gulf is a meritime bottleneck, overland routes are too vulnerable, and there's no guarantee these days that Turkey will allow overflights of its airspace."
There are many ways to get supplies there. Granted the logistics of the situation are the optimal but it can be done.
"I worry the Pentagon has become stuffed with multiple reincarnations of Publius Quinctilius Varus and Charles "Chinese" Gordon, and seem to think another march to Khartoum via the Teutoburg Wald is just the thing we need."
Ah but that is where we have Congress to keep them in check...whereas, if the Pentagon did NOT make plans for multiple contingencies, we would definitely have trouble.
"1. Germany and Japan were both ethnically and culturally homogeneous; they had none of the sectarian or ethnic divisions/tensions that Iraq has."
Granted. And that is why it is taking so long to try to establish a working government in these regions.
"2. Both Germany and Japan had societies based on strong central authority and shared national identity; Iraq is an artificial state where tribal and familiar bonds are stronger than 'Iraqi' identity. It has endured this long thanks mainly to the prevalence of strongmen who could effectively and ruthlessly suppress dissention."
Again, true...which is why it helping them establish a government takes a great deal of time and effort.
"3. The Allies did not have to contend with a diffuse, multidimensional native insurgency against their occupation in either German or Japan, and were careful to leave the underlying culture intact. Not so in Iraq today, where its basically a cultural and military free-for-all."
The problem is that the underlying culture you refer to literally breds chaos...hence the work of making compromises between culture and a centralized working government is taking longer.
"4. Reconstruction in both Europe and Asia was undertaken with speed, dispatch, generousity, and clear success. Iraq is the modern poster child for graft, corruption, and unmitigated profiteering, with no corresponding success in rebuilding the vital infrastructure."
As I recall, reconstruction in German had problems with graft and corruption as well. Japan didn't have these problems of course.
"5. Let's not forget there was a rather large global rival the Allies were facing back in the 1940s, one which offered a clear economic and political alternative. Not so today, and so nothing to effectively marshall our arguments against."
Too true...would that there WAS a specific target...that would make things easier.
Now, my question is, if this isn't to your liking, what would YOU suggest we do to get out of the region - preferrably a method which would not leave countless dead or fleeing the new dictator (or group) coming into power? Last time we pulled out of a country like that, it was in Viet Nam...and we saw lots of dead bodies and boat people.
-
RE: Needless to say
[Read the article: The rantings of hateful leftists and Arab paranoids]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]@Paul Dirks ,
"a compliment of 90,000 troops stationed in Iraq is just the medicine we need to prevent all those terrorist attacks in Israel, Pakistan, Lebanon, Yemen, New York and London."
Well, unless you consider that if they were planned and worked out and practised in the Middle East and perhaps having a post there with intelligence capabilites could have caught them --- you're absolutely right about it not making sense at all.
-
@Kitt
[Read the article: The rantings of hateful leftists and Arab paranoids]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"As of this moment, we are in Iraq. And as of moment, there are lots of dead bodies and there are lots of people fleeing Iraq. I won't claim to know what to expect if and ever we get out of Iraq. But there is no North Vietnamese stranglehold or North Iraqi stranglehold to contend with in Iraq. Do you think, as the blustering Rumsfeld like to say, and that other asshole, Cheney, like to claim, AQ will take over Iraq and the Iraqi oil industry?"
Do I think AQ will take over Iraq or their oil industry? As you say, I won't claim to know what to expect if and when we get out of Iraq...except to say I do expect to see anarchy of some type.
However, I do not discount the possibility that AQ could take over the country...it IS a possibility.
-
@omooex
[Read the article: The rantings of hateful leftists and Arab paranoids]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"What do you mean by the middle east? That's a fairly broad category than includes a dozen governments and millions of people. It makes as much sense as the European Union deciding what its going to do about its problem with the Americas. Seeing as this is your chief area of concern, despite that a great deal of anti-American violence has been exported from South Asia and Africa, you would do well to get a map and pin some red flags on the hotspots you've identified"
I agree it IS a large area with lots of governments. However, not trying to at least keep a post for observation purposes in the region would be a waste. We're already there...why not keep a post in each country to monitor the region? Just a thought.
-
@Strangely Enough
[Read the article: The rantings of hateful leftists and Arab paranoids]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Impressive list, but, what exactly do the "anthrax attacks" have to do with maintaining a permanent military presence in Iraq?"
The Anthrax had to be manufactured somewhere. If not in this country, then another one.
What I fail to see is why everyone is against keeping a post there. We're already there, we have the post fairly developed, and if we get the consent of the local government, why not do it?