JOHN LOMBARD,
Sir, - The implication in Kathleen Flynn's letter (January 5th) that those who support the US actions have no regard for innocent lives is insulting. Her views, though noble and well meaning, are not anti-American - they are just hopelessly idealistic .
No one wishes to see the tragic loss of innocent life, but doing nothing or "negotiating" is certain to lead to further loss of life and the proliferation of terrorist organisations.
She states that "only through negotiations are political problems solved". Who exactly should the US be negotiating with? The Taliban? Osama Bin Laden? If the world had continued to negotiate with Hitler, where would we be today?
The common thread of those condemning the US campaign is their total lack of a viable alternative (a bit like the anti-agreement politicians in the North). The US had no option but to act as it did. To do anything else would be almost as naïve as the sentiments expressed in Ms Flynn's letter.
As they say in America, "Get real". - Yours, etc.,
JOHN LOMBARD,
Friarsland Road,
Dublin 14.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - Donal Delaney (January 3rd) lambastes critics of America's military campaign in Afghanistan for failing to offer "any alternative solution to rendering \ the terrorist threat impotent". However, neither he nor any of the other advocates of this war has presented any evidence to suggest that the military action taken will reduce the risk of future terrorist attacks.
Fifteen of the 19 hijackers involved in the September 11th attacks came from Saudi Arabia; they are believed to have been trained in the US and Germany. Not one of them came from Afghanistan and no evidence exists to suggest that any of the hijackers ever visited Afghanistan. The Afghan war has increased anti-Western sentiment in much of the Muslim world and support for Islamist terrorist organisations has been strengthened as a result. Given the globalisation of Islamist terrorist groups, which have been most active over the past decade in Algeria, the Philippines and Egypt, it seems absurd to suggest that achieving military victory in Afghanistan, while consequently increasing the support for terrorist groups seeking to strike against the US, will help to protect American citizens.
John K Cooley noted, in the most recent edition of his thoroughly researched book Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism, that the Taliban's enthusiasm for hosting bin Laden had begun to dwindle in light of the security threat his presence posed to their reign. Warlords once welcomed by the Taliban, such as bin Laden's friends Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Ahmed Shah Massoud, were chased by the Taliban when the Afghan rulers no longer had a use for them. Cooley's book was last updated prior to the September 11th attacks.
After those attacks, the Pakistani government (then a Taliban ally) sided with America and exerted pressure on the Taliban to hand bin Laden over for trial. The Taliban agreed with the two largest Islamic parties in Pakistan to do just that if they were provided with evidence of his guilt. Realistically, the Taliban could not be seen to give a fellow Muslim to the American "infidels" without seeing any evidence of his culpability; but they may well have washed their hands of bin Laden if given an opportunity to do so without losing face. If the evidence existed, the US had a moral obligation to produce it to avoid a war they knew would cost thousands of innocent lives; if not, they had no legal or moral basis for demanding bin Laden's extradition.
Compare this with the attitude of the American government towards countries which request the extradition of mass murderers and war criminals who have taken refuge in the US. One of many examples is that of Emannuel Constant, who has been tried and convicted of the murder of over 4,000 civilians in Haiti. All of the evidence has been presented to the US, which will not even discuss the possibility of extraditing him. How, then, can one justify the US decision to bomb another country because it refuses to extradite a suspected mass murderer unless provided with evidence?
Finally, I take exception to Mr Delaney's assertion that anyone who criticises the military campaign lacks sympathy for the victims of September 11th. The parents of Greg Rodriguez, a young man who died in the World Trade Centre, had this to say shortly before the bombing in Afghanistan began:: "We read enough of the news to sense that our government is heading in the direction of violent revenge, with the prospect of sons, daughters, parents, friends in distant lands dying, suffering, and nursing further grievances against us. It is not the way to go. . .not in our son's name." - Yours, etc.,
BRIAN PATTERSON,
Fairview,
Dublin 3.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - Truth is the first casualty of war because propaganda is essential for the continuation of war. Terms such as "war against terrorism" must be repeated and repeated, rather than face the fact that an impoverished country is being bombarded to bits with innocent deaths not even counted. Right and wrong is replaced by American and anti-American.
Once people believe propaganda it is virtally impossible to reason with them. It should, however, be remembered that those who committed the New York atrocity believed they were right, so much so that they were willing to lay down their own lives. Indeed the worst atrocities in the history of mankind were committed by people who were absolutely convinced of an ideology in their own minds.
Hence the danger of propaganda. The media should not relay so much of it. The alternative to war is truth and the peace thereof. - Yours, etc.,
PADDY HUGHES,
Bird Avenue,
Clonskeagh,
Dublin 14.