Judging from the letters you published, the public ain't buying your shit, either, Times!
"In Afghanistan, a War Gone Sour ... (3 Letters)
To the Editor:
Re “How the ‘Good War’ in Afghanistan Went Bad” (front page, Aug. 12):
I’m sure there are many reasons the Afghan war went sour. But much of the blame must lie with a Bush administration that from the start treated Afghanistan as merely the warm-up exercise for the war it really wanted, in Iraq.
The rubble of the World Trade Center was still settling when Donald H. Rumsfeld issued the administration’s intelligence analysts their marching orders: Find a way to tie Saddam Hussein to the attacks, no matter what “things related and not” they had to lash together to do so. That set the tone.
Then the administration charged into Afghanistan, ostensibly in hot pursuit of Osama bin Laden, and allowed the terror mastermind to get away, despite having supposedly had him cornered at Tora Bora.
And finally, when war with Iraq came in response to the war resolution Congress let itself be slickered into passing, the administration sucked resources away from the Afghan conflict to smash Saddam Hussein and then to hold down the lid on the bubbling cauldron of violence Mr. Bush’s invasion had created there.
Four years later, we’re still holding down the lid in Iraq, and the Taliban are staging a comeback in Afghanistan. My question is: why should anyone be surprised?
Eric B. Lipps
Staten Island, Aug. 12, 2007•
To the Editor:
That so many countries joined the United States in the war against Afghanistan shows that it was viewed as the only way to liberate the Afghan people from the oppressive yoke of the Taliban government. As usual, the United States was the lead player, but it is responsible for the major blunder committed when, after the initial victory, European allies sought desperately to shore up security beyond Kabul by sending troops to outlying provinces.
The ever omniscient and triumphalist United States administration refused, saying securing Kabul was enough as the Taliban had been routed.
Afghanistan is a country of many ethnic peoples, with frequent prevalence of Pashtoons in central government. It is also a country where ethnic groups and communities jealously guard their local autonomy; common lore was that when the tax collector came from Kabul to the provinces, he was often shot at!
The United States decision not to secure provinces beyond Kabul, particularly in Kandahar to the south and Helmand to the west, where Pashtoons dominate, is puzzling.
The United States had poured millions there in the 1960s and 1970s for development projects, including the famous Helmand Valley agricultural project. This seems to be another case of the ideologues trumping the lessons of history — or was it the distraction of Iraq?
Either way, the price in terms of economic and physical security is borne by poor Afghans. Oh for the days when this beautiful country used to be a haven for tourists!
Sri Ram Aiyer
Chevy Chase, Md., Aug. 13, 2007
The writer was the World Bank resident representative in Afghanistan in 1971.•
To the Editor:
A reasonable question for all citizens to ask Congress and the Bush administration is: How could the expenditure of billions over four years result in such poor results? So far, the electorate should have no confidence that those who seek the presidency have learned from the mistakes made by Congress in agreeing to fight terrorism through war.
Although the candidates of both major parties correctly fault the Bush administration for its obvious ineptitude, none of the leading candidates have made it clear that continuing to fight terrorism in this way has the great probability of increasing our vulnerability, as well as continuing to erode our constitutional rights.
Thomas M. Stephens
Columbus, Ohio, Aug. 13, 2007
... And in Iran? America Needs to Back Off (3 Letters)
To the Editor:
Re “U.S. Is Weighing Terrorist Label for Iran Guards” (front page, Aug. 15):
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice warns that delays in winning more economic sanctions against Iran could leave the United States with no option but unilateral action. The administration seems determined not to let Iran go nuclear.
A dominant power is tempted to act desperately to forestall the rise of other states that would reduce its freedom of action. It will claim that the rising power has ambitions beyond its legitimate interests.
In truth, with turmoil and the armies of a hostile power next door, there is nothing unusual about Iran’s meddling in Iraq, even if it is complicit in the deaths of Americans. And having been singled out as the No. 1 state threat by the Bush administration, Iranian leaders are under strong pressure to acquire the ultimate deterrent. America needs to back off.
Todd Buchanan
Eldora, Colo., Aug. 15, 2007•
To the Editor:
Congress must get back to Washington immediately to prevent a new Gulf of Tonkin situation. President Bush means to declare an arm of Iran’s government, the Revolutionary Guards, a terrorist organization. This is tantamount to a declaration of war because it will be understood as such by Iran, and President Bush knows it. This Congress was elected to stop the foreign adventures of this bellicose president. Now is its moment.
Jonathan D. Kaufelt
Santa Monica, Calif., Aug. 16, 2007•
To the Editor:
“Amateur Hour in Iran” (editorial, Aug. 16) cited examples of Iran’s “many dangerous behaviors”: nuclear ambitions, meddling in Iraq, providing arms to the combatants in Lebanon, and arming the Islamic jihadists in Afghanistan.
To make these charges with true moral authority, wouldn’t the United States have to ignore its own nuclear ambitions (space), meddling in Iraq (regime change), providing arms to Israel for use in Lebanon (cluster bombs), and our 10-year support of the Islamic jihadists in Afghanistan versus the Soviet Union?
Perhaps the time has come for the United States to once again provide the world with an example of true international leadership in place of the current “do as we say, not as we do” admonitions.
W. H. Edgar
Santa Barbara, Calif., Aug. 16, 2007
