Wide Awake on Afghanistan Policy

Re “The Looming Fights That Unity Conceals,” Opinion, Nov. 4: Eric Cohen says that America is splitting into four groups: those who want continued escalation of the war, those who want “fortress America,” those who like our current policy and anti-Americans. He’s missing one.

Call us wide-awake thinkers. We want safety from foreign terrorists but don’t see how blowing up untold numbers of innocents stops anti-American passions or catches any bad guys. We want trade and a strong economy but don’t see how throwing our hard-earned money at the rich, the mega-corporations and the military-industrial complex is going to help that.

We want security within our own borders but don’t see how letting Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft read our kids’ e-mails and imprison anyone with a turban stops anthrax-mailing wackos. And we love America but are very bothered by an administration whose method of “restoring honor and dignity to the White House” is to deny the public access to W’s daddy’s presidential papers.

Douglas Green

Sherman Oaks

*

Our country’s new ally Uzbekistan is currently detaining, and often torturing, thousands of people for the peaceful exercise of their religion. Like the senior U.S. defense official quoted in “U.S. Is Pushing to Open Bridge” (Nov. 5), I too hope that we can convey to Uzbekistan “the idea that there’s more than a brute-force way of getting things done.” We can’t expect to convey that idea through simple osmosis; we have to both preach and practice concern for human rights in Uzbekistan’s backyard.

In addition to demanding verifiable human rights improvement in Uzbekistan in exchange for U.S. aid, we should stop bombing Afghanistan long enough for serious food aid to get distributed; we should stop using cluster bombs, whose bomblets act like land mines when they do not detonate on impact; and we should sign the 1997 treaty banning land mines.

Elizabeth Palmberg

Claremont

*

While doing an exemplary job of extolling the virtues of stealth weaponry, the U.S. media have not proved as adept at informing the public about stealth policy, wherein our war against terrorism has cannily evolved into a war against the Taliban.

Michael Balchunas

Claremont

*

I read with interest Jacob Heilbrunn’s linking of Vietnam with our policy in Afghanistan (Opinion, Nov. 4). His advocacy of the Powell doctrine is appropriate only in so far as the exit strategy is concerned, and I think that will come in due time. We must be sure that the replacement government does not produce another breeding ground for the hate represented by the Taliban while it represents the people’s views. The foundation of the Powell doctrine stems from allowing the field commander to conduct the war with minimal loss of American life (and concurrently be willing to expend those lives in pursuit of a sound objective).

John Everett

Agoura Hills

*

I found “Ethnic Groups Must Share in the Pie” (Opinion, Nov. 4) to be enlightening. I would like to make a suggestion. Since Frederick Starr feels that it is much too soon for Afghanistan to consider a federal system, I wonder if a central parliament, composed of a member from each district, with a majority ruling on legislation, might be something feasible at this time? With distinct divisions between north and south and between ethnic groups, it might not be easy but worth the effort. If not, they may wind up forever at war or, like North and South Korea, permanently divided. With representatives from viable autonomous regions, along with a U.N. representative, meeting regularly to solve larger issues, it could be a chance for the Afghans to create a functioning state.

Erin Scarlett

Cathedral City