Letters to the Editor for Tuesday, January 25, 2005

European and Mideast editions

(EDITOR’S NOTE: These are the letters that appeared in each edition of Stripes on this publication date. Click here to jump ahead to the Pacific edition letters)

Gonzales not right fit for GIs

As retired professional military leaders of the U.S. armed forces, we are deeply concerned about the nomination of Alberto R. Gonzales to be attorney general. We feel that his views concerning the role of the Geneva Conventions in U.S. detention and interrogation policy and practice have put soldiers in harm’s way.

During his tenure as White House counsel, Gonzales appears to have played a significant role in shaping U.S. detention and interrogation operations in Afghanistan; Iraq; Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere.

Today, it is clear that these operations have:

• Fostered greater animosity toward the United States;
• Undermined our intelligence-gathering efforts; and
• Added to the risks facing our troops serving around the world.

Before Gonzales assumes the position of attorney general, it is critical to understand whether he intends to adhere to the positions he adopted as White House counsel or chart a revised course more consistent with fulfilling our nation’s complex security interests — and maintaining a military that operates within the rule of law.

Among his past actions that concern us most, Gonzales wrote to the president on Jan. 25, 2002, advising him that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the conflict then under way in Afghanistan. The reasoning Gonzales advanced in this memo was rejected by many military leaders at the time, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, who argued that abandoning the Geneva Conventions would put our soldiers at greater risk and would “reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice in supporting the Geneva Conventions.”

Perhaps most troubling of all, the White House decision to depart from the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan went hand in hand with the decision to relax the definition of torture and to alter interrogation doctrine accordingly. These changes in doctrine have led to uncertainty and confusion in the field, contributing to the abuses of detainees at Abu Ghraib [prison in Iraq] and elsewhere, and undermining the mission and morale of our troops.

The full extent of Gonzales’ role in endorsing or implementing the interrogation practices the world has now seen remains unclear. A series of memos prepared at his direction in 2002 recommended official authorization of harsh interrogation methods, including waterboarding, feigned suffocation and sleep deprivation.

The United States’ commitment to the Geneva Conventions — the laws of war — flows not only from field experience, but also from the moral principles on which this country was founded, and by which we all continue to be guided.

We urge senators to take into account the effects of Gonzales’ advice on U.S. detention and interrogation policy and practice.

Marine Brig. Gen. David M. Brahms (retired)
Carlsbad, Calif.

The letter also was signed by: Army Brig. Gen. James Cullen (retired), Army Brig. Gen. Evelyn P. Foote (retired), Army Lt. Gen. Robert Gard (retired), Navy Vice Adm. Lee F. Gunn (retired), Navy Rear Adm. Don Guter (retired), Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar (retired), Navy Rear Adm. John D. Hutson (retired), Army Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy (retired), Air Force Gen. Merrill McPeak (retired), Army Maj. Gen. Melvyn Montano (retired), Army Gen. John Shalikashvili (retired).

Women wouldn’t slack off

I wish I was surprised by “Women don’t belong in infantry” (Dec. 15), but frankly I’m not.

The writer said he would leave his personal opinions aside, then expressed them in a very narrow-minded manner. I agree that women who want to join the infantry should meet the same physical training requirements. However, the reason weight and body fat regulations are different is because women are naturally supposed to carry more body fat than males. Feel free to ask your medic if you’re skeptical.

As for the claims that women would slack off, any woman tough enough to pass the male PT standards and infantry training is probably at least as motivated as the males. While in Iraq I have seen women carry heavier loads to prove themselves more than I’ve seen them loafing, and several of the females in my unit carry the heavier M249 light machine gun while the only M4 assault rifle is carried by the tallest man in our unit.

Decency requires that opposite genders have separate places to dress and shower when available. This is not preferential treatment but common sense. Remember in Kuwait where the whole unit shared one tent? The men kept to one side, the women to the other, and people changed their underclothes in the showers.

To prevent accidental pregnancies, infantry females could be required to be on birth control in the field. At other times, do remember that men can have children while in the military and women should be able to, as well.

The bottom line is, soldiers who can pass the same training should have the same opportunities, regardless of gender. Period.

Spc. Khai Krumbhaar
Baghdad

Pacific edition

Headlines make a statement

I was sorely disappointed by the poor taste of Stars and Stripes’ Jan. 16 front page, on which editors juxtaposed the headline “Women in combat prohibition to remain” with a second headline, “Soldier to ‘Swan’: Army captain regains confidence, femininity through TV makeover odyssey” — accompanied by before and after pictures of the newly crowned Capt. DeLisa Stiles, no less.

I have no quarrel with Capt. Stiles — I respect her ability to make the changes in her life that she desires and in the manner that she sees fit. I do, however, have a problem with the fact that Stripes ran this story toe-to-toe with the women-in-combat-prohibition headline on the front page.

While I appreciate that Stars and Stripes may have hoped to address the irony inherent in the near-simultaneous scheduled airing of Stiles’ makeover on “The Swan” and the Army secretary’s recent statement, the fact remains that this front page implies that women should abandon the struggle to serve in combat and instead focus on being beauty queens.

Frankly, that is the kind of stereotype and attitude many women join the military hoping to leave behind. (As if a woman can’t be a soldier and be feminine at the same time!) Apparently, the U.S. armed forces still have plenty of work to do in the gender-equality arena.

Tom Berryman
Seoul

Clear picture of Okinawa cable

It has been almost a year since Mediatti took over Okinawa’s cable television service. There have been many changes since then, some good and some not so good.

In May, the late fee was raised. In August, subscribers were greeted with new channels, while some old channels disappeared. Subscribers fought and won to get Fox News Channel restored. It took several more months than planned for Mediatti to offer islandwide cable Internet service. An entire neighborhood that has been in the building stages for more than a year and has had residents since September is just now being offered cable and cable Internet service.

Mediatti has failed to communicate changes in a timely manner with its customers. The American Forces Network Family channel suddenly changed from Channel 4 to Channel 13 without notice. Only customers purchasing premium channels are given a handy-dandy channel guide. Sometimes a short note comes with a subscriber’s bill; however, it is printed on the stub that customer is supposed to return with payment.

Since Mediatti seems to think that the only way to communicate with its customers is through local media outlets, I have some questions:

• During the September Camp Foster town hall meeting, the Mediatti representative said A&E would be back in the channel lineup soon. When?
• Why is there still a Japanese voiceover on the BBC during the evening?
• Why does the program guide (Channel 2) still have missing channels?
• When changes are made, why are they not listed on Channel 2?
• How come the weekly television guide in Stars and Stripes still has many channels (USA, TNT, Bravo) not listed [in the program guide]?
• Why are some channels on Mountain Time, as opposed to the advertised “West Coast” Pacific Time? This means that when a show says it will be on at 11 p.m., it is on two or three hours earlier.
• When are subscribers going to be able to pay online (also promised at the September town hall meeting)?
• Why is the Fox channel a local network and not the national version? I don’t really care about the weather or crime in San Diego.
• Why can’t Mediatti send out announcements about changes, imminent cable work or other pertinent information inside the billing statements? Counting on subscribers to hear the information on AFN Radio is foolish. Plus, is that AFN Radio’s job?
• Why isn’t Nickelodeon live anymore?

I will give Mediatti its due kudos. The cable Internet is hands down better than dialup service. The connections were slower in December, but I have heard that this problem is being addressed. It is great to have TNT, USA, Bravo, HGTV and the other new channels. The discounted rate offered to subscribers who prepaid for a year is awesome. Having all the AFN channels 13 and below is a nice feature. And while many moms and kids miss PBS, Mediatti did a fairly good job of explaining that situation.

So while Mediatti has made some improvements, there is still more work to be done. I hope that these questions have answers and that somehow the subscribers will have access to those answers.

Susan Petersen
Okinawa

Gonzales not right fit for GIs

As retired professional military leaders of the U.S. armed forces, we are deeply concerned about the nomination of Alberto R. Gonzales to be attorney general. We feel that his views concerning the role of the Geneva Conventions in U.S. detention and interrogation policy and practice have put soldiers in harm’s way.

During his tenure as White House counsel, Mr. Gonzales appears to have played a significant role in shaping U.S. detention and interrogation operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.

Today, it is clear that these operations have:

• fostered greater animosity toward the United States;
• undermined our intelligence-gathering efforts; and
• added to the risks facing our troops serving around the world.

Before Mr. Gonzales assumes the position of attorney general, it is critical to understand whether he intends to adhere to the positions he adopted as White House counsel or chart a revised course more consistent with fulfilling our nation’s complex security interests — and maintaining a military that operates within the rule of law.

Among his past actions that concern us most, Mr. Gonzales wrote to the president on Jan. 25, 2002, advising him that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the conflict then under way in Afghanistan. The reasoning Mr. Gonzales advanced in this memo was rejected by many military leaders at the time, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, who argued that abandoning the Geneva Conventions would put our soldiers at greater risk and would “reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice in supporting the Geneva Conventions.”

Perhaps most troubling of all, the White House decision to depart from the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan went hand in hand with the decision to relax the definition of torture and to alter interrogation doctrine accordingly. These changes in doctrine have led to uncertainty and confusion in the field, contributing to the abuses of detainees at Abu Ghraib [prison in Iraq] and elsewhere, and undermining the mission and morale of our troops.

The full extent of Mr. Gonzales’ role in endorsing or implementing the interrogation practices the world has now seen remains unclear. A series of memos that were prepared at his direction in 2002 recommended official authorization of harsh interrogation methods, including waterboarding, feigned suffocation and sleep deprivation.

The United States’ commitment to the Geneva Conventions — the laws of war — flows not only from field experience, but also from the moral principles on which this country was founded, and by which we all continue to be guided.

We urge senators to take into account the effects of Mr. Gonzales’ advice on U.S. detention and interrogation policy and practice.

Marine Brig. Gen. David M. Brahms (retired)
Carlsbad, Calif.

The letter also was signed by: Army Brig. Gen. James Cullen (retired), Army Brig. Gen. Evelyn P. Foote (retired), Army Lt. Gen. Robert Gard (retired), Navy Vice Adm. Lee F. Gunn (retired), Navy Rear Adm. Don Guter (retired), Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar (retired), Navy Rear Adm. John D. Hutson (retired), Army Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy (retired), Air Force Gen. Merrill McPeak (retired), Army Maj. Gen. Melvyn Montano (retired), Army Gen. John Shalikashvili (retired).