A three-word solution to the Afghanistan conflict?
Scott Kemp’s article ("The real lessons of Afghanistan?", Issue #4-2010, p. 28) demands a second opinion, maybe that of a devil’s advocate. But first let me identify myself. I may be a pacifist, not a soldier because the Artillery rejected me in 1939. When requirements eased, I was under the thumb of the people who thought engineers in training couldn’t opt for military service. Like Scott Kemp, I, too, had Queen’s Journal experience writing “The Steam Shovel” (September 1940-1944) before any editor knew who I was.
Scott Kemp writes of the “infamous September 1 terrorist attacks” and he suggests that we find out why the enemy is fighting us. Before 9/11 the U.S. was contributing three billion dollars per year to support the Israeli occupation of Palestine (illegal in the eyes of the United Nations). It also kept thousands of troops and CIA people in Saudi Arabia to support the most repressive regime in the Middle East. A dozen or so college grads resented the “infidels” with their enclaves in Saudi Arabia where Saudi laws do not apply. These educated Saudis attacked the World Trade Centre in New York City and failed before 2001. Then they escalated their attack using kamikazi techniques.
Were these men cowardly terrorists or freedom fighters who were willing to give up their lives to fight foreign “occupiers”? We should consider the “cowards question” in light of the U.S. drone planes attacking civilian targets in Pakistan with a woman controlling the attack from a military base in far off New Mexico or Kansas.
We are not being attacked by any nation. Is the solution to the conflicts just there words? I suggest they might be “Yankee, Go Home.”
Frank Pollard lives in Farmington Hills, MI