|
|||||||||
Posted October 22, 2001
Reply to 'Incensed'
This is in response to Robert W.'s letter ["Incensed," October 19]. I will not deal with the generality of interventionism since the editors of Antiwar.com have already done that. On a point of information though, as far as I am aware (I am of Afghan origin), and whilst I recognise the cruelty of aspects of their rule, the Taliban have never encouraged, or forced, female genital mutilation. This is not an accepted cultural practice in Afghanistan in general either. So Robert W. is wrong to use this to justify intervention in Afghanistan (or elsewhere).
Peace With Justice
I appreciate Raimondo's point in his "Peaceniks" piece [October 15] that tactics of the leftist antiwar movement may alienate Americans at large.
Nowadays, apparently, the words "condemn," "atrocity," and "evil" (sprinkled liberally in Raimondo's missive) must dress any argument relating to 9/11. Perhaps such words serve as a code to confirm our common horror at what happened in New York and Washington.
But I'd go a bit easier on the peaceniks, Justin. Like a lot of Americans, they're looking (I think) for a political structure that makes sense. The peace movement is a flexible one now. Flesh out the "peace with justice" framework, formulate a concrete agenda that moves beyond the unusable past, and you may find the peaceniks flocking your way. Like it or not, you seem to have a few in tow already.
~ Katharine Winans, California
Prayer and Solidarity
I've put a check in the mail. What you are doing is very important, and I do appreciate being able to read solid information and commentaries from an antiwar point of view.
In prayer and solidarity for peace...
Free Speech
[Regarding "Free Speech Has Become A War Casualty," Dalton Camp, The Toronto Star, October 14:]
I was a newspaper man for the Marine Corps during W.W.II. As such one of my assignments was to interview casualties of Iwo Jima and Okinawa at the hospital on Saipan. Perhaps, it was from then on that I questioned reasons for war. One of the conclusion to which I came was that "war is man's greatest stupidity."
Subsequently, we were the first troops sent to Nagasaki after the Japanese surrender, and what I saw there further deepened that feeling. After seeing all of the Japanese Zeros on the field at Yatushiro (I may here be mistaken about the location, not about the facts), and no fuel on the field it became apparent that we did not need to use those two bombs. Freedom of information has allowed us into the facts that the Japanese were trying to get the Russians to intervene to start surrender talks. We had broken the Japanese military code many years before.
When I returned from that war, my father, who I had thought was not well educated, (he was unschooled, not uneducated) told me, "Son, I never worried about winning this war. What I worry about is that we could become what we are fighting."
We have. This is now a fascistic country. This article was but one additional article of proof.
Nefarious Conspiracy
I should preface this letter by saying that I am a regular visitor and big fan of Antiwar.com and Justin Raimondo. His answer to my question regarding US/EU agendas in the Balkans was very much appreciated. However, I have a big problem with Raimondo's reply to ... [Alan Lewis's letter of 10/17, "Peaceniks"]. Particularly, his comment:
"The attempt to explain US military action as the result of a nefarious conspiracy to control oil, opium, or whatever is not very convincing at a time when the wreckage of the World Trade Center is still smoking."
By saying "nefarious conspiracy" Raimondo is unnecessarily reductive and condescending, not to mention hypocritical. The aborted/pending Unocal pipeline through Afghanistan is very well documented (see http://www.atimes.com/global-econ/CJ06Dj01.html). Certainly, the current situation may prove to be beneficial for some people.
Who may it be beneficial for, exactly? Raimondo himself has already given us the answer to who pays for and profits from US military actions in his July 31, 2000 column, "Profiteers of Empire -- Cheney, Soros, and Co."
Let's take a look who Raimondo points the finger at:
"The most direct and obvious beneficiaries of imperialism are government contractors -- those American companies and transnational consortiums that build and maintain the physical and financial infrastructure of America's global empire. A good example is the Halliburton Company, where Dick Cheney was CEO until he was tapped for the vice presidency. Cheney is the virtual embodiment of what Dwight Eisenhower called the 'military-industrial complex', who segued easily from Bush's defense secretary to CEO of Halliburton, a major defense contractor as well as the biggest infrastructural engineer for oil drilling worldwide. In tracing the trajectory of 'Cheney's Path: From Gulf War to Mideast Oil', the New York Times perfectly described the revolving door that hardly separates the corporate world from the US government..."
Does anyone else find it interesting that Halliburton and UNOCAL have worked on projects together before (see http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Cheney-Myanmar-Pipeline.htm)?
The point is, these are very valid questions that must be addressed, especially by one who has promoted such "conspiracies," (I think they're much more substantial than conspiracies). Raimondo contends that the war in Afghanistan in its current form is one of police actions and "infinite justice." Yet he cautions us from letting Rumsfeld et. al use 9/11 as an excuse to start World War III -- which by logic already admits that the attack can very well be used as a springboard for wider interests within the administration, regardless of whether or not the ruins are still smoking.
Fundamental Agreement
[Regarding the "Backtalk" editor's reply to Perry G.'s letter of October 17, "The Mission":]
Your editorial comment:
"Antiwar.com
is devoted to the cause of American
military non-interventionism. In
the Middle East, a noninterventionist
policy would include ending the
embargo on Iraq, ending US funding
of foreign militaries, and returning
US troops to the United States.
It would not include trying to 'force
Israel into agreement with the Palestinians'."
And it has been the knowledge of our fundamental agreement here that keeps right wing fanatics like me (Howard Phillips for President!) returning to your site on a daily basis.
Justin Raimondo and a few others in your stable, while too often pandering to the left, are insightful, even brilliant -- compared to the moronic pap issuing from mainstream media.
Thanks for doing the job those high paid bozos are failing to do.
~ Stuart Grant, Point Roberts, Washington
Neither Side Wore White
I just read ... [the guest column of July 31, 2000 by Stella Jatras, "'Srebrenica' -- Code Word to Silence Critics of US Policy in the Balkans"] linked from Yahoo.com.
I served in B-H and felt that neither side wore white. Bosnia's Muslims had a better hold of the media and the Serbs, well, the Serbs reacted to everything in stereotypical fashion. I lived in Brcko and before going there felt the US support for the "Muslim" side was strange.
But again, media being the easiest group to manipulate, we were sucked in by the visions of death and destruction and blind to the tank tracks of the "Muslim" forces backing away from the hospitals where they just fired from. The only thing we saw was Serbs shelling the hospital. The shelling of the hospital, after it was used as a fire support base is legal under the "Laws of Land Warfare," ask anyone in the Staff Judge Advocate. Just goes to show that the time honored quotation, "The first casualty of war is truth" is still true today.
I am still serving in the military and enjoy a good read no matter the source so I wonder about the articles and your organization's stands.
~ Bradley W.