Wednesday, January 16, 2002
|
Wednesday, January 16, 2002 |
|
Hamrick off base on response to terrorism You asked for feedback on your Jan. 9 [column by Dave Hamrick]. Here's mine: what were you thinking when you wrote this piece? Your opinion is so based on half-truths, innuendos and just plan factual errors, I hardly know where to begin my criticism. First, you offer us the premise that, "Knowing that our bombs and bullets are killing hundreds or thousands of innocent Afghan men, women and children is not something we like, is it?" Mr. Hamrick, how do you know "our bombs are killing hundreds or thousands of innocent men, women and children..."? I assume you are assuming this from a few scattered, unsubstantiated press releases from journalists who are in the region. I say unsubstantiated because these reports are coming from the very same journalists who are bemoaning the fact that they have been restricted access to the front lines. If they're not there to see things with their own eyes, how are they getting their information on the alleged atrocities? Well, from alleged witnesses who allegedly claim to have seen something. Allegedly. So, we have journalists portraying as factual, hearsay events that they have no evidence to substantiate. You yourself give allusion to the lack of evidence when you write, "In Afghanistan, some reports suggest, we've killed far more innocents than died here, including the not-so-innocents." Smells like yellow journalism to me. Next, you write, "We've attacked and destroyed a government that has not attacked us." By this, I take it you are referring to the Taliban, but if you would check your facts, you would find that the Taliban was not recognized as the legitimate government of Afghanistan by any nation except three (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Pakistan) nor the United Nations. Nor is the Taliban destroyed, as anyone would recognize from either the Department of Defense press releases or from media reports from the region. We did in fact, though, take down the Taliban from controlling Afghanistan. You refer to the Taliban as "sorry, worthless sacks of fertilizer." I would use stronger adjectives. The Taliban were basically an organized crime syndicate specializing in drug trade (opium primarily), but involved in prostitution, slave-trade (women, children, men), and terrorism. The Taliban claimed to be a pious religious party, but it was all a facade to cover their illegal money-making operations and to control the population in order to control their territory, in this case Afghanistan. The Taliban also sanctioned and harbored the al Qaida terror organization, including its leader Osama Bin Ladin. The Taliban and al Qaida were allies because of similar business interests (the organized crime syndicate thing mentioned above) and the hundreds of millions of dollars Osama provided the Taliban in return for sanctuary. The al Qaida is far from being destroyed. They have taken a severe beating in Afghanistan, but that is only one country in their spider web of terror. We have not declared war on Afghanistan as your opinion piece insinuates, but war on terrorism, if you will remember. The Taliban and al Qaida and terrorists in general are not nice people. They are smart, though; their use of radical fundamentalist version of religion (Islam in this case) is a cunning method to control and use the populace to further their cause and, yes, they have world domination on their minds in order to further their power and control. The threat from terrorism is clear and visible as Sept. 11 reminds us. It has been recognized by all major nation states including some of our former foes such as Russia and judged by the United Nations (by resolution), NATO, and, yes, our government, worthy to have war declared on it. As a reminder to you, we the United States are not acting unilaterally in either Afghanistan or in the overall war on terrorism, but with a coalition of many countries. Your statement, "So we have to look squarely at the consequences of our government's actions and decide whether we support or oppose them, decide whether we, the people, believe we are justified in going across an ocean and killing other people's children," seems to imply that the United States has somehow made a policy of killing children. As a retired Army officer and now defense contractor supporting relief efforts in Afghanistan, I find that statement not only ludicrous but insulting, and wrong in so many ways. Of course the military does not target children or any other innocent civilians, for heaven's sake! In fact, the military goes to great lengths to ensure the protection of innocent lives through a complex targeting process, use of smart-bombs, and highly trained observer/controllers on the ground calling in strikes. But, yes, tragically, mistakes do occur. Smart bombs are only as smart as the human who programs them, grid coordinates get entered wrong, and in the fog of war, controllers sometimes call strikes in on their own locations, and, yes, civilian casualties do occur. If the error can be attributed to the fault of a service member, he or she is subject to disciplinary actions including court martial. Reports of abuses and atrocities are taken very seriously and not without action. Ironically, in fact, the first military casualty from hostile fire occurred because he was sent to investigate reports of alleged civilian casualties in a part of Afghanistan. But instead of finding civilian casualties, he found an ambush waiting for him and gave his life for his country. Reports say he may have been shot by a 14-year-old. I wonder, if things had gone differently and he killed the 14-year-old, would he now be accused and charged in the media of being a child killer? You state, "We've started something with this war that won't stop anytime soon, not if we want to be successful. All we've done so far is kill a few terrorists ..." (and thousands of innocent civilians according to you) "... and stir up a hornets nest of hatred and resolve among thousands more." I grant you, we have stirred up a nest of some sorts, but to me it looks more like a nest of terrorist thugs who have killed thousands of innocent lives and are willing to kill hundreds of thousands more, and die trying. To your question, "If we prevent future terrorist attacks in the U.S., will it have been worth it?", I state yes with conviction. Make no mistake, terrorists are out to kill you, me and our families; we have proof of that. I personally will go to extreme measures to provide for the safety of my family. I believe our government is justified to go to extreme measures to provide for the safety of her citizens. People are trying to hurt us out there. We, the citizens and our leaders, must be resolute in our campaign against terrorism. But rest assured, we will conduct the campaign in a moral and professional manner, one that does not include baseless allegations and factual errors. You were correct on one thing reading through your column did make me squeamish. Or is a better word nauseous? Mr. Hamrick, I've read your opinions for over five years now and know you are better than this. Just my suggestion to you: stay with what you know about, like local politics. Martin Poffenberger Major (retired), U.S. Army Peachtree City
|
||