Other People’s Mail

Compiled by Kate Hilmy and Andrew Blakely

Challenges in Afghanistan

To the Los Angeles Times, Aug. 31, 2009

The article by “Atif B” is hauntingly reminiscent of the words coming out of Saigon four decades ago from the most celebrated critic of our policy in Vietnam, the late journalist David Halberstam.

Just as Atif B today reports on the rigged election in Afghanistan under the corrupt leadership, Halberstam’s contention then was that the war in Vietnam was being lost because of the corrupt government there, which had lost the loyalty of the people.

Halberstam’s prescient warnings were ignored, and our troops slogged through the country for years.

Today, on-the-ground reporter Atif B, with eyes wide open, asks us to “please begin to demand more honest, responsive, law-abiding behavior from the Afghan government.”

Is anyone listening now?

June Maguire, Mission Viejo, CA

A Costly ”˜Success’

To The Independent, Sept. 11, 2009

I saw an experienced journalist on TV express sympathy for the family of the soldier who died trying to rescue the journalist Stephen Farrell—but he didn’t mention the family of Sultan Munadi, the interpreter who died in the rescue attempt. In the same program, a military person asserted the rescue was “successful,” despite Munadi’s death and that of at least two civilians.

This is typical of the evaluations of the worth of different people in other reports on this event. Yet local interpreters are essential aides to many journalists reporting in foreign countries and are often under greater threat than foreign journalists because they may be seen as traitors locally, and generally would like to carry on living in the country.

To realize the double standards, just imagine what the headlines would have been if it had been the journalist who had died and Munadi survived—and consider whether any British person would have referred to it as a “success.”

Malcolm Peltu, London, UK

The Answer in Afghanistan?

To the Los Angeles Times, Sept. 10, 2009

The wise doubts that Andrew J. Bacevich raises regarding the impending U.S. escalation in that tragic country of Afghanistan are right on target.

As with all historical empires, our policymakers blend a toxic mixture of arrogance and ignorance in the formulation of foreign affairs. The result: the disasters of Vietnam and Iraq.

It is now time for our citizens of all political stripes to reassess the role of this country in the world. Our Founding Fathers would have been appalled to see that in 2009, we have become the world’s hyperpower. That’s not why they fought a revolution.

Bob Teigan, Santa Susana, CA

“Success” in Afghanistan

To The Washington Post, Sept. 15, 2009

Stephen G. Rademacher’s Sept. 5 op-ed “Barack Obama as Charlie Wilson?” neglected important lessons learned from Rep. Charles Wilson’s involvement with Afghanistan 25 years ago.

In a Post op-ed from Aug. 28, 2008, “Charlie Wilson’s Peace,” Mr. Wilson wrote, “If we had done the right thing in Afghanistan then—following up our military support with the necessary investments in diplomacy and development assistance—we would have better secured our own country’s future, as well as peace and stability in the region.”

We need to learn from our experiences 25 years ago and not let history repeat itself. No longer is battlefield success sufficient in securing our national security. Leaving Afghanistan without contributing support for a stable society and economic opportunity will likely lead to further U.S. involvement in the region.

Small investments in development and diplomacy in Afghanistan today can prevent large military investments there again in the future. This is the most important lesson that President Obama can learn from Charlie Wilson.

George Ingra, Washington, DC. The writer is chairman of the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition.

Troop Buildup in Afghanistan?

To The New York Times, Sept. 1, 2009

“Obama to Weigh Buildup Option in Afghan War” discusses the difficult political and military choices that the United States faces in Afghanistan.

Fighting is now concentrated in the Helmand Province, where the military circumstances, and prospects for success, are vastly different than in border regions like Waziristan, between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Helmand is a river valley in south-central Afghanistan where an extensive American development program turned desert into flourishing agricultural land in the 1950s and ”˜60s. Arnold Toynbee wrote in 1961 that the region had “become a piece of America inserted into the Afghan landscape.” The region was ceded to the Taliban by NATO and is now being liberated by the United States.

The Helmand region, where most of the poppies of Afghanistan have been cultivated in recent years, has a strikingly different terrain from the mountainous regions along the Afghan-Pakistan border. While the border regions have a history of independence from both Afghanistan and Pakistan and have been the center of regional Pashtun nationalism, the Helmand has been an integral part of Afghanistan.

History, an open battlefield and distance from Taliban recruiting camps in Pakistan present a far more promising opportunity for the United States to expel the Taliban and support humane social development in Helmand Province than in the turbulent border regions.

Edward A. Friedman, Hoboken, NJ

Academics, and Apartheid

To the Los Angeles Times, Sept. 6, 2009

Ben-Gurion University President Rivka Carmi claims to defend academic freedom even as she suggests that one of her professors leave his job and his own country simply for writing an op-ed article published in this paper. That’s not academic freedom; it is bullying.

She characterizes Neve Gordon’s article as “divisive,” and yet academic freedom is tested when difficult issues are brought up.

She dismisses Gordon’s ideas, claiming that he only states his personal opinion. Gordon was the chair of the university’s political science department. His scholarly book, Israel’s Occupation, was published last year by the University of California Press.

One would think he has enough academic credentials to speak on nonviolent alternatives to right the wrongs of the Israeli occupation.

Sydney Levy, Oakland, CA

Engage Hamas

To UAE’s The National, Aug. 25, 2009

In reference to the opinion article by Amr Hamzawy and Jeffrey Christiansen, “U.S. must choose between the two voices of Hamas,” it has been discouraging to view the continually shifting viewpoints which seem to be bent on dictating policy to the entire world, while demanding that everyone sing to the same tune.

An example of this has been the U.S. policy toward Hamas. The attitude regarding Hamas during the Bush administration was an uncomfortable litany of arrogance, domination, manipulation and intolerance, which upset many allies of the U.S., and even many Americans themselves. We must keep in mind that Hamas is the legally elected representative of the Palestinian people. This is a fact that cannot be ignored.

It is time now, I believe, under the new administration of Barack Obama, to take a sincere new look at the Palestinian situation and to recognize Hamas as a diplomatic avenue toward negotiating solutions which will bring peace to Palestine.

Dr. Salee Amina Mohammed, Beverly Hills, CA

The United Church and Israel

To Canada’s The Globe and Mail, Aug. 10, 2009

Bernie Farber, chief executive officer of the Canadian Jewish Congress, claims that anybody who votes in favor of four resolutions to be considered at the upcoming general meeting of the United Church of Canada is in favor of anti-Semitism (“United Church Resolution Is Anti-Semitic, CJC says”—Aug. 8). What are these resolutions attacked by Mr. Farber? In general terms they call for support of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel until it recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.

Why these resolutions are anti-Semitic, Mr. Farber does not explain. They do not seek the destruction of Israel, but to change its behavior. Israel must stop violating international law with the construction of illegal settlements in the West Bank and it must end its collective punishment of the 1.5 million Gazans through a blockade that denies them adequate food, medicine and building materials, and that prevents them from traveling abroad for study and commerce.

A similar campaign gradually led to the end of apartheid in South Africa, and South Africa and the world are better off for its success. If the campaign against Israel’s illegal behavior is successful, Israel, the Palestinian people and the world will be better off as well.

Edwin E. Daniel, Victoria, Canada

Toronto Film Festival Report

To Ms. Tina Daunt, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 21, 2009

Why didn’t you see fit to ask any of the authors of the Toronto Declaration for comment in your Sept. 19 piece [“Hollywood fights back against anti-Israeli sentiment”]? Our e-mail address is on our site, we are not hard to reach, yet no one heard from you. You clearly conducted many interviews on the other side. Isn’t it standard journalistic practice to ask for a response, especially when throwing around slanders like “Jew haters”?

Many of the claims made about our protest in your article are simply false: we did not call for a boycott, as your subhead claims, I personally attended the festival as did most of the co-authors of the declaration. We are not “blacklisting” Israeli filmmakers, our letter clearly states Israeli filmmakers are welcome at TIFF [Toronto International Film Festival] and 11 Israeli filmmakers signed our declaration. We did not politicize the film festival, the festival did by deciding to honor Tel Aviv with a special spotlight in a year that began with the assault on Gaza, acts which the U.N. has now described as “war crimes.” That’s why the decision led to protests in Ramallah and Cairo, not just in Toronto.

Without giving us the chance to address the extremely contentious and damaging claims made by several people quoted in your piece, your readers cannot possibly have the information they need to make up their own minds. Can you please explain why we were not contacted? I believe standard journalist practices apply even to those of us who don’t live in LA.

Naomi Klein, Toronto, Canada

Iran’s Intentions

To The Washington Post, Sept. 1, 2009

The Aug. 24 editorial “The Tehran File,” regarding the International Atomic Energy Agency’s handling of Iran, misrepresented the role of the agency and unfairly characterized the 12-year tenure of IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei.

The IAEA’s legitimacy rests on its ability to remain impartial and draw conclusions based on standards of evidence, irrespective of political pressure. The United States has recently benefited from that legitimacy as the credibility of its long-standing claims about Iran’s intentions was bolstered by the IAEA’s efforts to press Iran for explanations in the face of evidence of past weaponization activities. Maintaining that legitimacy means releasing information only when the evidence warrants it.

The Post should also at least acknowledge Mr. ElBaradei’s professional and restrained conduct before the Iraq war in the face of pressure and ridicule from Washington. We should not forget that if the United States had heeded the findings of Mr. ElBaradei and his IAEA inspectors in Iraq, rather than the “slam dunk” assertions of the Bush administration, we would not have invaded that country on the basis of erroneous claims that Iraq’s nuclear weapons program had been reconstituted.

Peter Crail, Washington, DC. The writer is a nonproliferation analyst with the Arms Control Association.

Obama’s Health Care Speech

To the Los Angeles Times, Sept. 11, 2009

Regarding your editorial, what I would like to see Obama propose in the debate on how to pay for healthcare is a transfer of money from U.S. warfare to U.S. healthcare.

A substantive reduction in the bloated U.S. military budget, and a transfer of that money to the defense of healthcare in the United States, would be literally a “lifesaver” in so many ways.

Rachel Bruhnke, San Pedro, CA