Other People's Mail, Pages 59-60

Obama’s Afghan Decision

Compiled by Kate Hilmy and Andrew Blakely

To The New York Times, Dec. 8, 2009

To Mr. [Frank] Rich’s cogent arguments I add two further considerations not evident in recent administration policy discussions. The first, voiced by numerous Afghanistan experts, is the danger that an American troop escalation will increase the appearance of an American occupation and drive ordinary Afghans into the hands of the Taliban.

The second is the related danger that a rise in the number of Muslims killed in Afghanistan will radicalize ever-larger numbers of formerly nonextremist Muslims in countries around the world.

Robert Wright (“Who Created Major Hasan?” Op-Ed, Nov. 22) gives this argument new focus and urgency, noting that the men who carried out the Fort Hood and Little Rock shootings both referred to the American military’s killing of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan, including a large number of innocent civilians. He fears that we may see more such incidences of domestic terror, with no way to protect ourselves.

These dangers should be borne in mind by those who formulate and put into effect our nation’s policy.

Donna M. Wulff, Providence, RI

Us and Them in Afghanistan

To the Toronto Globe and Mail, Jan. 1, 2010

David Bercuson speculates that Afghan villagers won’t alert North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces to insurgent activities because they fear Taliban reprisals. A more plausible explanation may be that they fear the brutal raids and air strikes that may follow if foreign forces believe Taliban are present in their village. In a related story on the same page, you report two incidents in which innocent young students and other civilians were killed and wounded by the activities of the international forces. Now that is surely enough to scare many Afghans into silence.

Louise Buhler, Saskatoon, Canada

Down on Drones

To the Los Angeles Times, Dec. 16, 2009

Using our Predator drones to attack targets in a “sprawling city” of 850,000, the Times says, “risks rupturing Washington’s relationship with Islamabad.”

I’ll tell you very clearly: It will guarantee a rupture between my government and myself and cost the president what little shred of faith I still have in him.

The Times reports, in sterile, coldblooded terms, that our military has carried out 48 attacks by unmanned Predator and Reaper aircraft this year alone. Yet 10 is the number of supposedly high-level Taliban leaders you estimate we’ve killed.

Were the remaining targets empty buildings? Or have we already taken hundreds, perhaps thousands, of lives through our cowardly actions?

Jon Williams, Goleta, CA

For Iran: Words or Warheads?

To The New York Times, Dec. 29, 2009

It was appalling to see Alan J. Kuperman’s recommendation that the United States bomb Iranian nuclear facilities because Iran has refused to agree to the terms proposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency for processing nuclear fuel abroad.

Mr. Kuperman’s proposal, if carried out, would be likely to kill a large number of Iranian civilians, unite most Middle East nations against the United States, destroy the rapidly growing dissident movement in Iran, end any Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, end allied support of American efforts in Afghanistan and encourage Iran to resume and accelerate a nuclear weapon program that most experts believe was suspended six years ago. That is too high a price to pay.

The better solution would be a Middle East nuclear-free zone, but that would require that Israel acknowledge and then destroy its own secretly developed nuclear arsenal, currently the only nuclear threat in the region.

Thomas A. Halsted, Gloucester, MA

Ignore Repression? Why Not?

To The Independent, Jan. 8, 2010

Richard Dalton, Britain’s former ambassador to Iran, says, “We cannot ignore repression.” Really? We ignore it every day when it is perpetrated by our allies; from Israel’s siege of Gaza to the use of torture by Egypt and Pakistan, to the creation of concentration camps for Tamil refugees in Sri Lanka.

And equally pertinent, Iranians still remember the support our Foreign Office gave to the Shah over 30 years ago when hundreds of demonstrators were mowed down by his security forces. Nor was there any talk of human rights when the Shah’s secret police literally roasted their opponents alive.

Verbal support for the opponents of Ahmedinejad and Khameini is a gift to the present regime which can, quite justifiably, point to Britain’s hypocrisy and selectivity. The threat of sanctions and military action over nuclear reprocessing is a threat to all Iranians, not just the regime, and is in stark contrast to Britain’s de facto approval of Israeli nuclear weapons.

At a time when David Miliband is promising to secure immunity from private prosecutions for Israelis facing war crime charges—that is, those accused of massacring 1,400 Gazans a year ago—the best thing for him and Britain’s foreign policy establishment to do, if they genuinely support those on the streets of Tehran, is to take a vow of silence.

Tony Greenstein, Brighton, UK

Arrest Warrant for Israelis

To The Independent, Dec. 18, 2009

How splendid that an arrest warrant was issued for Tzipi Livni on grounds of war crimes, even if it was subsequently withdrawn. World leaders need to be aware that their actions may lead them to justice before an international court for war crimes, if not this time, then some time later.

The Nuremberg principles, if they were not simply to be regarded as “victor’s justice,” need to be applied more even-handedly. Tony Blair and George Bush, who are no longer in office, are prime candidates for action, and it is to be hoped that they will not have to wait as long as Augusto Pinochet.

Barry Barber, Great Malvern, UK

Israel an Apartheid State?

To The Independent, Dec. 12, 2009

According to Howard Jacobson, being a Zionist should not render one ineligible to serve on an inquiry that has at its heart gathering the truth behind the invasion of a country regarded by Israel as a bitter enemy. By the same token, the findings of an inquiry into, say, the paying of enormous bonuses by banks, would not be prejudiced by having as members of that inquiry those with allegiance to those very banks.

The semantic detours undertaken by your writer (by suggesting, for example, linguistic conspiracies by those using such words as “ardent” or “active” before “Zionist”) cannot disguise the reality that the Iraq war’s greatest cheerleaders came from groups in the West—especially in the United States—who are the most vocal supporters of Israel and the most energetic lobbyists on its behalf. Perhaps Mr. Jacobson would care to look again at the evidence from the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, from Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams et al., before attempting to rewrite history.

Ghayth N. Armanazi, London, UK

Al Hurra Fails the Test

To The National, Dec. 27, 2009

In reference to Dr. James Zogby’s opinion article “A $100m bad idea then, a $650m bad idea now,” I think this is exactly what sprung to every Arab’s mind when they first saw the U.S. government-funded TV channel Al Hurra. Why have they wasted their money?

The channel screams propaganda that the Arab world does not need at this point and quite frankly has had enough of. If anything, the channel does more harm than good. It belittles Arabs and offends us.

If only the American government would start to listen to the right kind of Arab Americans, there would be many benefits to both sides and many tragedies would have been avoided. Al Hurra is a huge failure.

Ziad Sardawi, Dubai, UAE

Speaking Out Against Radicals

To The New York Times, Dec. 22, 2009

Thomas L. Friedman writes: “What is really scary is that this violent, jihadist minority seems to enjoy the most ”˜legitimacy’ in the Muslim world today. Few political and religious leaders dare to speak out against them in public.”

While it’s true that jihadists are a minority, they are certainly not held in high esteem, as Mr. Friedman suggests. For instance, a leading Pakistani cleric, Sarfraz Ahmed Naeemi, was killed by a suicide bomber because he had been a critic of violence being committed in the name of the Taliban. And he was not alone; he was the driving spirit of a group of over 20 religious parties raising their voices against the violence committed by the Taliban.

To paint Muslims as silent spectators is quite unjust.

Owais A. Farooqi, Lakewood, WA

The Saudis’ View

To The New York Times, Jan. 12, 2010

Re: “Father Knows Best,” by Thomas L. Friedman: Saudi government officials and religious scholars—including and especially King Abdullah—have been outspoken in their condemnation of religious intolerance, extremism and terrorism, in Saudi Arabia and around the world.

This has been the case in speeches, pronouncements and media interviews—in print and online, and on radio and television.

King Abdullah seeks to protect Saudi Arabia from extremism and violence, and its youth from deviant ideologies that could corrupt them, and, by extension, undermine the nation’s future.

The open and public denunciation of those who pervert the peaceful faith of Islam has been central to how the Kingdom continues to successfully fight against terrorists.

Nail Al-Jubeir, Embassy of Saudi Arabia, Washington, DC

Marginalizing Muslims

To The Washington Post, Dec. 12, 2009

Anne Applebaum made a unique and plausible argument for the recent Swiss vote in her Dec. 8 op-ed, “In Switzerland, towers of fear.” It is possible that Swiss citizens sought to enforce integration and avoid extremism by banning the construction of minarets in the country. If this is the case, and Switzerland is indeed following the example of the French headscarf ban and Danish foreign-marriage restrictions, this will be a catastrophe.

The prohibition of new mosques with minarets marginalizes Muslims in Switzerland. When a person or community begins to experience this marginalization, they may become angry and, in the long term, begin to feel desperate for a means of protest or retaliation. In this way, marginalization leads to radicalization. As is the case with an individual of any creed, radicalization can lead to violent acts and terrorist attacks.

To prevent extremism, the Swiss government should be taking measures to guarantee freedom to diverse minority populations. This would be more effective than combating it through measures aimed at legal marginalization of a particular group. If equality is guaranteed in a positive way, immigrants will want to identify themselves as Swiss rather than seek separation and radicalism.

Carrie Chomuik, Alexandria, VA

Yemen Needs U.S. Aid

To The Washington Post, Jan. 10, 2010

The Jan. 5 news story “Yemen walks fine line in aiding U.S.” correctly noted that the United States must avoid becoming the center of attention as it assists Yemen in counterterrorism efforts.

Yemenis generally hold positive views of and welcome Americans, but not our government. Escalating evidence of U.S. interference in Yemeni internal affairs would only weaken the government and threaten vital U.S. interests.

However, it is equally important for the United States to make a long-term and significant financial commitment to alleviate poverty, increase economic growth and improve the management of dwindling natural resources in Yemen. Since 1990, the United States has viewed Yemen piecemeal through a “terrorism,” “democracy” or “corruption” lens. Carrot-and-stick policies have pushed Yemen to comply with some U.S. demands, but they have failed to build a platform for cooperation, establish transparent government institutions or significantly improve the education, health and incomes of the Yemeni people.

To stop the al-Qaeda movement and stabilize Yemen, all of those problems must be addressed.

Ellen Levinson, Washington, DC

Next >