Letters to the Editor
-
Use of the term war for colonization
How many years should Iraqis be enslaved and their resources including lands be controlled by foreign forces with heavy weaponry before Iraq is called a colony? Is it still a war if a large army of foreign forces invade a country, squat on it and try to legalize their seizure of every resource of that country? By the same token, are we still engaged in the Indian wars in the United States? Or is the former Indian land officially now a colony of western settlers who divorced their native country just like Ian Smith did in the case of then Rhodesia?
-
Man of God
Listen you can't argue with a man who is fighting the good fight. He is a good man of faith...with God on his side...and is in fact spreading his doctrine as God sees fit. Wait a minute...is this George Bush or Osmam Bin Laden!?
Is there a difference between our holy warrior with God on his side and theirs?
Great article except I would say the old evil empire was very formidable and intractable too.
-
Calling all editors...
Corrections:
*Making war is like playing dice with the Devil -- using his dice.
*To put it in Catholic terms, it is the cardinal sin -- the sin of pride.
*And just like the crowd in the fairy tale, the country went along.
*We won our proxy war against our Cold War foe, but in the process created another enemy, the Taliban, who were eventually to shield Al Qaeda.
*The Saud dynasty could lose its grip on power, with devastating consequences for the global economy, albeit with fantastic liberating consequences for the people living under their despotic regime.
*And if Musharraf falls in Pakistan there would be yet another unstable nuclear-armed regime.
*The ultimate responsibility rests with the people who elected Bush.
A decent enough article, hamstrung by the gaffes and errors above (and others requiring too much explanation that I didn't flag) which vary in severity from trivial to mind-boggling.
Who was playing editor when this one went through the process?
-
I'm so tired...
I am an active duty military officer. The lasting damage that has been done to the armed forces - especially the Army - deeply saddens and infuriates me. To send brave young men and women into a meat grinder just once is one thing; but to send them back again, and again - and sometimes again - demonstrates this administration's absolute moral bankruptcy. I am reminded of a great Mark Knopfler song, 'Done With Bonaparte':
"And I pray our child will never see
A little Corporal again
Point toward a foreign shore
Captivate the hearts of men
Save my soul from evil, Lord
And heal this soldier's heart
I'll trust in thee to keep me, Lord
I'm done - with Bonaparte"
-
Did Everyone Forget
that millions of people were out in the streets of America and every other country protesting the war? Hundreds of thousands of Americans were marching all over the nation protesting the Iraq war.
Predictions were correctly made before the war that have and still are taking place from the humanitarian crisis to the very real possibility that the entire region would erupt into violence. Many used the metaphor "timberbox" to describe the region -- all that was needed is one spark and the whole region would ignite. Bush & Cheney provided a bonfire.
No one expected a new cold war though. That is one prediction that was not made.
Bush & Cheney have made a total mess out of US international and domestic policies.
Gary, your article is an important piece to the puzzle. It is one piece that is rarely alluded to muchless written in depth about. I do believe that Bush really thinks he is God's chosen "warrior." But that is fanatsy. We need grown-ups in the W.H. NOW before any more horrendeous decisions are put into action.
-
No High Purpose to This War
I earnestly hope that someday we know what the actual reason was that we went to war in Iraq. If and when we do, I'll be very surprised if the reasons are anything like the high purpose that Mr. Kamiya assigns. I think we basically went to war for oil. Bush's neocon buddies (I'm not sure that Bush, personally, had any reason for going to war -- other than doing what his buddies told him to do) wanted a secure base in the Middle East. They'd have secure access to Iraqi oil plus be able to influence actions thorough out the Middle East.
But, what do I know? But, I don't think that anyone else knows either.
-
I Saw This Coming Ten Years Ago!
The NeoCon think-tank (an oxymoronic phrase if ever there were one) Project For The New American Century is at the center of this morass...ethically, morally and physically; they TOLD us as much in their so-called "Statement of Principle" in January, 1997. The signers of this manifesto are, for the most part, the SAME players involved in the current imbroglio in Iraq and world-wide. See for yourself at www.newamericancentury.org.
Here is a verbatim copy of their "Statement of Principle"...with the signatories to it right under. See for yourself that they told us what they wanted to do and who they were; all they had to do to put this farce in place was to elect an amiable dolt as President...who would be maleable and either too stupid to know what they were doing or was so out of touch he wouldn't know it if it bit him on his gluteus maximus!
The evidence:
Statement of Principle: June 3, 1997
American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.