Americans Undercover: Do We Need to Know?

Re “Silent Men Speak to a U.S. Presence in Afghanistan,” Nov. 5: The presence of U.S. military advisors in Afghanistan should remain confidential. Making public such information does nothing but put these courageous individuals at risk and compromise their operation against the terrorists. Publishing photographs of such personnel, whose lives often depend on anonymity, is inexcusable. The excuse that “the public has a right to know,” would be, in this case, only a lame attempt to justify sensationalism at the expense of American lives. Paul Watson has given our enemy enough information to make these men targets.

Doug Robertson

Burbank

*

Exactly what was Watson’s purpose in identifying by tail number and color an undercover U.S. aircraft in Afghanistan? What was his purpose in identifying the make, model and color of the men’s van? What was his purpose in harassing them while they were engaged in defending this country, to the point they jumped in the van and left?

The irresponsibility of the reporter is magnified by the irresponsibility of the editorial decision that let these specific facts be printed. Get a clue, we’re at war!

Unfortunately, I’m starting to ponder the need for government censorship to step in when editorial judgment is out to lunch.

Steve Carpenter

Rancho Palos Verdes

*

As a former infantry sergeant with the 101st Airborne in ‘68-’69, I read with revulsion your article attempting to pin down the names and locations--indeed, the photographs!--of our armed forces engaged in a dangerously exposed mission in enemy territory during wartime. In a crossword puzzle, the clue was: opposite of “patriot.” For the life of me, I couldn’t figure out how to spell “journalist” with seven letters.

Richard Bussell

Santa Clarita