Letters to
Antiwar.com
 
We get a lot of letters, and publish a representative sampling of them in this column, which is updated as often as possible by our "Backtalk editor," Sam Koritz. Please send your letters to backtalk@antiwar.com. Letters may be edited for length (and coherence). Unless otherwise indicated, authors may be identified and e-mail addresses will not be published..

Posted November 14, 2001

Tokugawa

Thanks for a really thoughtful website. I only recently discovered your site, but now visit it regularly for its refreshingly well thought out perspective.

I want to respond to the editorial posted a while back regarding the "Strategic Withdrawal Option" [by Scott McConnell, October 30]. I have a lot of sympathy with that point of view. But in order for it to be plausible, I think it needs more fleshing out. When I review history I can think of a few examples of nations which have made the strategic withdrawal option their policy. The most relevant case here, I think, is Japan under the Tokugawa.

...When Admiral Perry entered Japan and forced it to revise this policy, the Japanese were caught off-guard, unaware of U.S. military might from far across the ocean. The Tokugawa Shogunate quickly collapsed, leading to the Meiji restoration, which lead to super-nationalism, and eventually World War II.

I think the lesson to be learned from this is that if strategic withdrawal is to be offered as a genuine option, it has to be combined with an awareness of what is going on in the world. Otherwise, the equivalent of an Admiral Perry will catch you by surprise, just when you least expect it. How to keep tabs on those kinds of developments while at the same time withdrawing from active interaction with foreign entanglements might prove difficult.

Once again, thanks for your thoughtful site, which I look forward to visiting frequently.

~ Jim Wilson

Scott McConnell replies:

I very much agree with Jim Wilson's point that any strategic withdrawal should not be blindly isolationist or ignorant of the outside world. I would hope that young scholars with a strategist's bent would begin to do the serious work of fleshing out and thinking through the possibilities. Perhaps 9-11 will spur them. An important book, Isolationism Reconfigured, was published several years ago by the late Eric Nordlinger, a political scientist at Brown. It is this kind of work, at once creative and scholarly, we need more of.

Blair

Thanks for keeping so many of us aware of what's going on in the world. Lord knows we wouldn't hear half this stuff anywhere else.

Anyhow, regarding Goldstein's 11/12 Airstrip One article ["Blair: Just Get Out of Uncle Sam's Way"], I'm pretty surprised at some of the conclusions he draws. While I agree that Britain as a whole has been a moderating influence on the war (or at least attempts to be), Tony Blair has been hawking it up with the best of them. I think the reason America doesn't "tell Britain to go home" is because of the convenience of having a charismatic (at least vis-à-vis Bush) English-speaking politico talking up every action that is being taken.

Also, Rupert Murdoch isn't American he's Australian.

~ Jason Ditz

"Emmanuel Goldstein" replies:

You're right Blair does "hawk it up", and my article was written tongue in cheek. However, I was sincere in saying that I have no opinion on America's actions in the war (if I was a Yank I'd probably be quite hawkish). I do believe, however that this is not our fight, and I also think that we are going to pay a high price for "moderating" America.

On the issue of Murdoch, he may be Australian born but he is an American citizen. I used the term advisedly.

Full Admission

I see you feature a news headline concerning Bin Laden's denial of any involvement in the Anthrax mailings. How about an article that reports his full admission and responsibility for the Sept. 11th murders?

~ Edith Adams

The "Backtalk" editor replies:

We ran that story -- "Bin Laden: Yes, I Did It," the Telegraph, November 11 -- on Sunday, the day it was published.

Proof

I like your site, Antiwar.com; it's wonderful.

Please answer me in "Backtalk": why is the US hiding the witness or proof which proves that Osama or Al Qaeda is behind this attack. What is the logic behind it?

~ Majid F.

The "Backtalk" editor replies:

The 3 explanations I've seen:

  1. Releasing the proof would expose the means by which the government gathered the proof, making it ineffective in the future.
  2. The evidence is unconvincing.

  3. The evidence would implicate highly placed Saudis.

According to the Telegraph article mentioned in the letter above, the British government will release new evidence on Wednesday. The centerpiece of this evidence will be a "previously undisclosed video" that was "not made for public release." In this video, according to the Telegraph, bin Laden admits that al Qaeda carried out the attacks, describes himself and members of his group as "terrorists" (for the first time), describes the 9/11 victims as "innocents" (for the first time. The Koran forbids the killing of "innocents"), and volunteers that he sent out a secret command in one of his videos, just as the US Government has warned he might.

Efforts

Thank you. America needs you and all of your efforts.

~ NSL, Alaska

Back to Antiwar.com Home Page | Contact Us