U.S. Help for Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan

I am glad that the issue of Afghanistan has been given some attention on the editorial page (Feb. 4), “Getting Too Close,” but I just didn’t agree with your perspective.

The idea that “the United States can perhaps help within limits” the supplying of effective weapons is a dangerous concept. It is like letting the Afghans die a slow death. “We’ll give you some arms, but not enough to win,” is the message.

The notion that U.S. military aid to the Afghans will escalate the confrontation with the U.S.S.R. is absurd. It is indicative of the pacifism that led to the gradual but steady expansion of the Soviet Union. The Soviets will move until they hit steel. This is evidenced by the Cuban missile crisis when the Soviets backed out of deploying missiles on Cuba after President Kennedy threatened U.S. intervention. When the resolve of this nation and its leader overcomes the fear of the Soviet bear, whose fear is disguised intellectually as “pacifism,” then will be able to support our Afghan brothers with effective military weapons in addition to medical supplies, food, and clothing.

Americans, I feel, must understand the importance of Afghanistan both spiritually and politically. The Soviet invasion is not a matter of mere local geopolitical interest, as the editorial suggests. It represents the ideological and spiritual battle for freedom from Communist totalitarianism. It is also the only place in the world where Soviet troops are engaged in battle. Can we idly sit by and watch as we did with the fall of Hungary and Czechoslovakia in the ‘50s and ‘60s? Can we be again deaf to calls for aid?

Lastly, I would like to point out that Afghanistan is one step closer, via the Arabian Sea, to the Middle East, an area upon which we are still reliant for our oil.

HENRY KRIEGEL

Canoga Park

It seems to me that you have joined the Reagan Administration in overlooking the most important element in this whole sad affair. The political and social reality of the current situation in Afghanistan is simply this--the Soviet and Afghan Communists are attempting to suppress by any means at their disposal a violent rebellion by groups of primitive religious fanatics, fanatics that we chose to purify by the simple semantical device of renaming them “freedom fighters.” Our role thus far has been to provide aid and comfort to the rebels while at the same time denying any direct official involvement in this tragic situation.

The “freedom fighters” we support are, for the most part, philosophical and religious soulmates of the Muslim fanatics we so correctly oppose in Iran, Lebanon and elsewhere in the Middle East. We aid these Afghan rebels in their struggle for “freedom,” but freedom from what and for what?

It seems likely that the only freedom that these “freedom fighters” have in mind is the freedom to restore this country to the primitive and barbaric social, political and religious conditions that prevailed in the 9th Century or thereabouts. They would appear to have no more use for or understanding of our concepts of freedom than have the Ayatollah Khomeini and his gang of robots.

I hold no particular sympathies for the Soviets, but, in this case, it may well be that they represent the lesser of two evils, and by opposing them we could yet again find ourselves promoting a cause, which if successful, will immediately turn upon us as another “Great Satan” to be reviled and attacked.

Will we ever learn that true national self-interest does not inevitably require knee-jerk opposition to all Soviet ideas and activities?

ROBERT S. COUGHLIN

Rancho Palos Verdes

Your editorial on U.S. aid to Afghan freedom fighters set a milestone for creative illogic. I suggest you loosen up the sweatbands around your foreheads and allow a greater flow of blood to the brain.

VICTOR BLACK

Cherry Valley