Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, November 2007, pages 67-68
Other People's Mail
Some letters by or to other people are as informative for our readers as anything we might write ourselves.
9/11 and the American Frontier
To The New York Times, Sept. 7, 2007
“America’s Guardian Myths,” by Susan Faludi (op-ed, Sept. 7), is very insightful. For a very brief time after 9/11 we North Americans had a chance to learn from our pain. One of its lessons might have been how much we are like others in our vulnerability, our suffering and our flawed leadership.
Since we were getting a flood of messages of sympathy and solidarity from around the world, we might have learned from them how to turn pain into compassion and wisdom. Then we could have begun to address the causes of the miseries that lead to terrorism.
We could have seen that terrorism is not simply born of evil but comes from histories of inferiority and the consequent desire for revenge. The way to counter terrorism is to advocate not for our own brand of “democracy” but for the just distribution of the world’s resources.
Instead, we used 9/11 to bolster our own feelings of “us versus them,” our illusory dream of invulnerability and our search for enemies rather than friends. This mentality, a blend of machismo and militarism, has given us bloody Iraq, tempts us to nuke Iran and requires us to look under every rock for dangerous foes.
Given this mentality, we will find them.
Tom F. Driver, Sheffield, MA (The writer is emeritus professor of theology and culture, Union Theological Seminary.)
How To Help Afghanistan?
To The New York Times, Aug. 23, 2007
The Taliban in Afghanistan will not be defeated militarily—not with punishing air power and its too frequent errant attacks, nor with more occupying troops and counterinsurgency units.
We need a Marshall Plan, without ideological strings, that addresses the desperate need for repaired and new infrastructure, decent jobs as a clear alternative to growing poppies, education and health care for all the people, with armed security limited to protecting this aid package, and a mutually closed border with Pakistan.
Only such a plan could possibly counter the Taliban in the hearts and minds of the long-suffering Afghan people.
(Rev.) Martin Deppe, Chicago, IL
A Surge of Disapproval
To the Los Angeles Times, Sept. 15, 2007
The new mantra for Bush’s speech is “return on success.” It is the new “Mission Accomplished” or “stay the course.”
But what’s the success?
So far, we have had nearly 3,800 American troops killed and 25,000 wounded, $500 billion wasted, 100,000 or more Iraqis killed and 2 million Iraqis fleeing to neighboring countries, and a whole generation of new recruits for Islamic extremist and terrorist groups.
Joel A. Davis, Glendale, CA
The General on the Hill
To The New York Times, Sept. 12, 2007
As the mother of a Marine, I avidly watched Gen. David H. Petraeus report on the war in Iraq to Congress. His comment that “the importance of recognizing that a premature drawdown of our forces would likely have devastating consequences” shows the greedy arrogance and thus major flaw in the Bush administration’s foreign policy in the Middle East.
The Bush administration’s objectives directly clash with the objectives of Iraqis; that is why these people didn’t greet us with flowers and cheers but with bombs and bullets.
I would find it refreshing if this administration would finish its sentences; premature drawdown of our forces would be devastating for whom? Iraqis, the average American or the Bush administration’s private interests?
Helen Logan, Fullerton, CA
Who Can Lead Us Out of War?
To San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 12, 200
I feel like we are the silent majority here in America. We vote in a Democratic majority to Congress to stop or at least slow down this president. We call our senators and representatives constantly, begging, pleading and yelling. We march in the streets. Polls show 70 percent of this country wants out of this war. They don’t listen. We have a group of cowards in Washington allowing our soldiers to die in the streets of Baghdad, while they cry about not having enough votes or we cannot leave without victory. I do not want to wait for the next president to start getting out of Iraq. I am tired of sending Americans to die in an illegal war for oil. I will gladly pay the price for oil if it will bring our troops home.
John Denham, Reedley, CA
Vietnam Quagmire of One’s Own
To The New York Times, Aug. 27, 2007
President Bush said in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars that “one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America’s withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like ”˜boat people,’ ”˜re-education camps,’ and ”˜killing fields.’ “
One could argue that the legacy cited by Mr. Bush was also the result of our escalation and involvement in that war, not just our withdrawal from it. And our legacy in Iraq will not come just from our eventual withdrawal, whenever that may be, but from the actions taken by Mr. Bush’s administration in the first place.
We already have a new set of painful vocabulary terms for this war—like Abu Ghraib and I.E.D.
It appears that Mr. Bush has sheltered himself as much from the reality of this war as he did from Vietnam in the past.
Dan Shea, Seattle, WA
Using Generals as Shields
To The Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 12, 2007
Regarding the Sept. 11 article, “Petraeus, Crocker try to buy time for U.S. efforts in Iraq,” there is a familiar tracking of the way this war is being explained in certain leadership circles. The echoes of the Vietnam War are there to be heard. The Johnson administration skillfully abdicated much of the responsibility for Vietnam to Gen. William Westmoreland, who grimly and bravely tried to win the war.
Today, President George Bush waits, hopes, and points to Gen. David Petraeus as “the expert” and is slowly, skillfully giving the impression that he, the president, will let General Petreaus make the call on what is needed. This is an unfortunate turn of events.
As the great President Harry S. Truman said, “The buck stops here!” And so it does with the commander in chief.
R. Ryder Stevens, Auburn, WA
Iraqi Translators’ Big Risks
To The New York Times, Sept. 6, 2007
As an Army captain deployed in the Sadr City section of Baghdad from 2004 to 2005, I supervised a team of Iraqi translators who worked with my unit in the 1st Cavalry Division. When we arrived in March 2004, there were about 90 Iraqis who had worked with the previous unit.
A month later, on April 4, when the Mahdi Army, the militia of the cleric Moktada al-Sadr, initiated open hostilities against American forces, all but about 15 of the translators quit because of the danger to them and their families. These remaining had to live on our base and shuffle their families secretly from Baghdad.
These translators accompanied our patrols, exposing themselves to the same risks and discomforts as our troops. In spite of precautions, four translators were brutally murdered by the Mahdi Army.
The bottom line is that we could not have operated without our Iraqi translators. As a nation we owe them every opportunity to rebuild their lives here in the U.S.
Steve Salomone, Somerville, MA
Different Deals
To The International Herald Tribune, Aug. 21, 2007
The article “Seeking to buttress Israel, U.S. signs a $30 billion military aid deal” (Aug. 17) clearly draws attention to the main cause of the problems in the Middle East and why the United States is despised in the region.
The article states that the United States is “giving Israel $30 billion in military aid over the next decade in what officials called a long-term investment in peace.”
And the next paragraph says that America plans “$20 billion in sales of sophisticated arms to its Arab allies in the region, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia.”
The United States gives arms to Israel, but makes the Arabs pay.
Andrew L. Lorant, Paris
Ruling Reroutes Bil’in Wall
To the Los Angeles Times, Sept. 10, 2007
It’s nice that the Palestinian villagers got part of their stolen land back. According to a recent United Nations report, almost 40 percent of the West Bank is forbidden or restricted to Palestinians, who happen to be the only legal inhabitants of the area. Palestinians can now access a tiny percentage more. Bravo to the Israeli Supreme Court, which made Israel look good despite flouting international law, approving illegal settlement growth and confiscation of Palestinian property, apartheid, discriminatory practices and the economic strangulation, checkpoints and permit system driving the continued ethnic cleansing in many parts of the West Bank.
Lyn McKuen, Los Angeles, CA
Kibbutzim on Arab Land
To The New York Times, Sept. 3, 2007
“The Kibbutz Sheds Socialism and Regains Lost Popularity” (front page, Aug. 27), about the “renewal” of certain Kibbutzim in Israel, did not mention a core fact: many, if not most, of these collectives were built on land illegally expropriated from the original Arab Palestinian owners.
While the starry-eyed founders of the collectives pledged themselves to the Marxist axiom “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” they somehow managed to overlook the fact that the underlying land was taken from Arab owners, who certainly were not part of this socialist dream and who needed the land themselves.
Apparently your reporter does not see that as a problem. If the collectives had actually borne the fair market value cost for their lands, in transactions with willing, uncoerced sellers, I imagine that many of them never would have attained a semblance of economic independence in the first place.
Fuad S. Saba, Winfield, IL
Smear Campaign Stifles Debate
To the Atlanta Journal, Sept. 16, 2007
In response to Richard Cohen’s column, “Why Israel matters to America: A Question for the Heart.” The study of the Israeli lobby by professors Stephen M. Walt and John J. Mearsheimer destroys the doctrinal orthodoxy that American and Israeli interests are identical and inseparable.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful and feared lobby in U.S. politics, has perpetuated this odious myth. AIPAC controls the discussion of Middle Eastern affairs in many ways, notably brandishing the threat of being tarred as an anti-Semite. That is the most toxic charge in American politics. Fear of this smear is used as an intellectual blackjack to stifle discourse concerning the issue of Israel and its value to America. Nothing is more damaging to U.S. interests than to not have an honest and informed debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Robert Boston Colgin, Atlanta, GA
Muslim President
To the San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 14, 2007
It was refreshing to read the light piece, “First Muslim American president?” by Khalil Bendib. The underlying satire and humor make it quite a memorable read. I would like to thank you for your open-mindedness in publishing this piece.
Bendib speaks on behalf of all American Muslims when he presents Islam as the religion of peace; he also brings up the sad truth of how Islamophobia has become an excuse for generalizing and stereotyping Muslims all over the world.
This article covers many important issues that need to be brought to light, such as the PATRIOT Act and the horrid Guantanamo Bay prison.
Once again, I thank you for publishing such an enlightening piece of work.
Mai El-Sadany, Fremont, CA
