Letters to the Editor
-
Hey guess what? Al Qaeda and Hamas also have rules on killing civilians...
Their rule is this: "Kill as many as possible."
That rule has also been adopted by the Syrian and Iranian-backed terrorists in Iraq.
It's amazing what you can find out if you ask the right questions.
-
It gets even worse on the ground
Readers may want to check out this horrifying article from the Nation, especially the part where the officer says that POST-WAR civilian deaths are so numerous they 'don't have time' to investigate:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/hedges
Salon, please keep these articles coming. We can't let this administration keep this fiasco and its atrocities below the radar. Critics, including military, intelligence and diplomatic consultants warned Bush & co of this kind of environment, and they were shouted down, ignored and called unpatriotic. This awful war didn't need to happen, and now we don't know how to get out of it.
-
to Elephantman: Killing civilians won't stop terrorism, only build support for it
Just because someone opposes this war, doesn't mean we're pro-terrorist or that we don't think terrorism doesn't need to be dealt with. It's a matter of HOW to deal with it, and unfortunately, the war in Iraq will likely create a vaccuum and enough anti-US sentiment to bolster Al Queda support (which wasn't there in the first place, if I'm not mistaken). We had terrorists training for pilot's licences in Florida, should we have just bombed Florida into oblivian in hopes of preventing 9/11?
I agree with military advisors and others who say terrorism needs to be dealt with as a criminal network, like the mafia, not as a war between nations. Al Queda attacked our country from WITHIN -- we need to recognize that cluster bombs won't solve that. It's like even the conservatives have said, we're fighting a different kind of battle here. New strategies have to address this. Also, terrorist networks tend to be self-regenerating and replenishing, not to mention the kamikazi mindset that doesn't mind dying for the cause. How can you drive such an opponent into surrender? There will always be more and there will always be some who want a so-called "hero's death".
We can look to the 30year Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an example of why 'overkill' (literally) backfires and tends to build support for terrorists as 'freedom fighters'.
Again, the Bush admin was warned on this by experts who were silenced and ignored. I only pray we can somehow get out of all of this mess.
-
Good luck to you, TalkSlowly...
...in your criminal investigation of Al Qaeda. Be sure to read bin Laden a Miranda warning when you find him. And good luck finding process servers to work in the Hindu Kush mountains of Afghanistan. Or getting legal secretaries to staff the public defender's office in Mosul, Fallujah and Sadr City.
Mind you, all of those things will hopefully be quite possible someday. When democracies and civilized and society takes root and drives out the tribal fanatics.
In the meantime, I think we better let the 82nd Airborne, the 101st Airborne, the 10th Mtn. Division and the First Marines do the job.
And as for bin Laden, I'll feel better when a Predator sends a couple of Hellfire missiles his way; not when he is under federal indictment.
-
Wait, I think I might need to correct myself.
bin Laden already is under federal indictment, isn't he? That's worked out pretty effectively, hasn't it?
All we need to do now is send Joe Friday in a black-and-white unit to pick him up, cuff him, and book him!
-
And another thing while I am at it, TalkSlowly;
When I look at the last 30 years of the Israeili-Palestinian conflict, I look at what has been gained for the Israeli people, and the Palestinian people.
The Palestinian people have done poorly in terms of standards of living, education, and, most of all, their own civil rights, particularly in those locales they have been self-governed by corrupt Palestinian "leaders."
The reign of Arafat through much of that time, until his death from AIDS, was nothing less than a kleptocracy.
So there you have the roots of the failure in the peace process. Thank goodness for American leadership that will not accept the miserable, desultory status quo in which the Palestinian people are the permanent pawns of Arab-state grievance politics.
-
Good luck to you, Elephantman, in winning the war on Iraq - oh wait we already did
I guess all these dying soldiers and Iraqi civilians don't know about "mission accomplished". And by the way, no one needs to "ask the right questions" about terrorists' standards-- we already know they attack civilians and don't follow any rules of engagement-- that's the definition of a terrorist.
I'm certainly no master strategist, I'm just saying Bush needed to listen to experts (Schwarzkopf & Bush Sr warned against Iraq and they should know) and that this battle is a totally different beast. No, we can't treat it like it's unpaid parking tickets, but we can't just blow up everything in sight while the network keeps moving and permutating (hence my example of the 9/11 terrorists in Florida-- an ounce of prevention would've been worth a pound of cure, no? Bush ignored pre-9/11 warnings too, and our FBI & CIA could've worked together more effectively with this admin)
No, federal indictment didn't get Bin Laden, but did bombing Afghanistan do any better? Yes, we toppled the Taliban-- for a while. But it bounces back and moves around. That's the problem with this new kind of war against networks (not nations) -- they replenish their ranks and permutate around the globe. I agree with Andrew Bacevich (sorry, I forget his rank) who says that we need new strategies-- and we can't design those new strategies with a President who won't listen to the military, intelligence and diplomatic experts but insists on proceeding in his ignorant way. The CIA was just arm-twisted into building support for the Iraq war.
And as an aside, and I know this will alarm many people, I don't see how we can get around wiretapping. It's not new and I think that judiciously used, is probably necessary. Also, I'm not saying that terrorists should enjoy full Bill of Rights protections (I think that the 4th doesn't apply to them) but we should at the very least try to abide by international law & Geneva conventions.
Finally, I wasn't giving Israel & Palestine as an example of what works- but what doesn't work. The Israeli gov't was very aggressive with the Palestinians, and it only built sympathy for them and perpetuated terrorism in return. Just because I think the Palestinians have some legitimate complaints doesn't mean I'm going to defend suicide bombers, sorry. I'm of Irish descent, and while I take issue with Britain's handling of the Irish conflict, the IRA was guilty of many atrocities as well.
Both are examples of similarly new and complex conflicts. What I'm saying is that in the new context of war, the old strategies don't seem to work any more-- they tend to bolster the terrorist's cause.
In these conflicts, enemy combatants aren't clearly defined, combat zones aren't demarcated-- it becomes a guessing game -- hence the total chaos we see ground soldiers enmeshed in. And the problem is that these conflicts become endless and as the years drag on, sympathies tend to build for terrorism -- how else can you explain people sympathizing with Palestinian suicide bombers? It becomes self-fulfilling prophecy.
Once again, I'm not saying I have any winning strategies, but that the Administration needs to listen to the experts and analysts and not imperial presidents and VP's with dubious agendas. Bush was also warned about the complexity of battle with the apocalyptic, Jihadist mindset and as well as of the political volitality of the region. But perhaps you're more of an expert than them.