Letters to the Editor for Monday, November 28, 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)

War based on a lie

Weapons of mass destruction? I’m still looking for them, and if you find any give me a call so we can justify our presence in Iraq. We started the war based on a lie, and we’ll finish it based on a lie. I say this because I am currently serving with a logistics headquarters in the Anbar province, between the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi. I am not fooled by the constant fabrication of “democracy” and “freedom” touted by our leadership at home and overseas.

This deception is furthered by our armed forces’ belief that we can just enter ancient Mesopotamia and tell the locals about the benefits of a legislative assembly. While our European ancestors were hanging from trees, these ancient people were writing algebra and solving quadratic equations. Now we feel compelled to strong-arm them into accepting the spoils of capitalism and “laissez-faire” society. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy watching Britney Spears on MTV and driving to McDonald’s, but do you honestly believe that Sunnis, Shias and Kurds want our Western ideas of entertainment and freedom imposed on them? Think again.

I’m not being negative, I’m being realistic. The reality in Iraq is that the United States created a nightmare situation where one didn’t exist. Yes, Saddam Hussein was an evil man who lied, cheated and pillaged his own nation. But how was he different from dictators in Africa who commit massive crimes again humanity with little repercussion and sometimes support from the West? The bottom line up front (BLUF to use a military acronym) is that Saddam was different because we used him as an excuse to go to war to make Americans “feel good” about the “War on Terrorism.” The BLUF is that our ultimate goal in 2003 was the security of Israel and the lucrative oil fields in northern and southern Iraq.

Weapons of mass destruction? Call me when you find them. In the meantime, “bring ’em on” so we can get our “mission accomplished” and get out of this mess.

Capt. Jeff Pirozzi
Camp Taqaddum, Iraq

Less is better in Iraq

After finally breaking away from the Powell Doctrine, it seems that we are still unable to break away from the mind-set of overwhelming power. We still have multimillion dollar bases glutted with vast numbers of support troops, and we are still employing large unit “search and destroy” missions.

In order to pacify Iraq and make it a model in the Middle East for other radical Islamic states, we need to commit long term. Such a commitment under the current mind-set involves large numbers of Reserve and National Guard troops. The reservists, though they are doing a superb job, are not ambitious, career-driven soldiers — they have other priorities in life. If we are so terrified of guerrilla warfare, why are we bringing more “sheep to the wolves?” History has taught us that highly trained, volunteer soldiers can perform incredibly well in much smaller numbers, suffering much fewer casualties, and thus attracting less media attention. Why do we, then, stray from strategies that have proved effective in previous conflicts such as the Banana Wars, Boxer uprising, and in some cases, even in Vietnam?

We need to remove a considerable number of support troops and all KBR and Army and Air Force Exchange Service civilians. That’s right, no more ice cream. Maintain only hard-charging, highly trained and supple combat troops who can aggressively and ubiquitously patrol the Iraqi streets with Iraqi augmentees. Most combat arms troops join the combat arms to fight (though some of them quixotically) and possess a sense of duty, patriotism and proud heritage. Let’s give them the same chance that Marine Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler and his Marines had.

Sgt. Eros Kopliku
Balad, Iraq

Guard faces extra problems

Because the writer of the Sept. 28 letter “Military has it backward” presented himself poorly, and because my active-duty brethren, it seems, have not taken time to research their facts, I fear that many people have the wrong idea about the National Guard.

We know that we signed up. We also know what we did not sign up for, and that was to face equal dangers and hardships without equal consideration and benefits. While deployment enhances the career of active-duty soldiers, it harms the livelihood of Guard soldiers. Even more galling, the Department of Defense and Department of the Army deny deployed Guardsmen promotions that they would be entitled to if in a nondeployed status, thereby setting back their military as well as civilian careers. At the same time active-duty officers are sent home after only six months in theater, in order to accept positions leading to promotion.

Active-duty soldiers are entitled to numerous bonuses while deployed, while bonuses for Army Guard soldiers who re-enlist while deployed are eliminated. Where is the equity, the “one team, one fight,” in such a policy?

We all leave families behind, but while U.S. Army Europe commander Gen. B.B. Bell and others appear in AFN commercials touting the many programs available to the families of active-duty soldiers, Guard families are left to fend for themselves. While active-duty soldiers send their children to schools where trained personnel understand and help them get through deployment, Guard children go to community schools where teachers and staff, not trained to deal with deployments, handle them quite differently.

I could list a dozen inequities, but I would hope our active-duty friends would at least have the moral character to agree that Guard soldiers, while deployed and sharing equal dangers, are deserving of equal benefits. Treat your Guardsmen with respect.

Capt. Patrick Sampsell
Bagram, Afghanistan

Fog lights and the law

Why do we Americans so arrogantly and blatantly ignore the fog lights rule in Germany, and why do the military police not enforce this law to protect our image and to make us look like the disciplined soldiers as well as concerned Americans we are supposed to be?

While it may appear cool, neat and impressive to have all these navigation and landing lights on, it is against the law in Germany. Fog lights (front or rear) are only supposed to be used if and when the visibility drops below 50 meters. This distance can easily be calculated, as the distance between all the white highway markers is 50 meters. Furthermore, if you have your fog lights on, your speed limit is also supposed to be reduced to 50 kilometers an hour.

Those offenders are also doing an injustice to other drivers, who are so often blinded by the excessive lights, especially the lower ones, which reflect off the pavement when wet and cause even a greater glare. You might want to get out of your car at night and stand in front of your powerful lights to see just what other drivers have to contend with. Your rear fog lights are also extra bright and likewise present a disturbance to the drivers behind you, and again especially during rainfall. The lower and closer the lights are to the pavement, the more they reflect off it.

Granted, there are a small percentage of local nationals who are also ignorant to the law, but eventually a roadside spot check will get them and they, as well as you, will be paying a fine.

But the bottom line: How about being a little more courteous to your fellow drivers and when someone flashes their lights at you, maybe it’s because you are blinding them or you have your rear fog light on. Thanks for your cooperation and courtesy.

David Enequist
Kitzingen, Germany

Pacific edition

Clarifying Kurdistan issue

In reference to “Kurds struggle for power, autonomy in Iraq” (article, Nov. 19, Korea edition):

[The article said:] “Despite Kurds’ predilection to refer to ‘Kurdistan,’ no such political or geographic entity exists.” The reason for this is that Kurdistan is well-rooted in dozens of decades of history that predates current political and geographical entities. The present has yet to catch up to the past. The people of Kurdistan know Kurdistan when they see it, and especially when the hear it. Where is Kurdish primarily spoken?

[The article said:] “ ‘There’s times when they’ll say ‘Kurdistan, Kurdistan, Kurdistan,’ said Lt. Col. Robert Benjamin, deputy commander of the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, of Fort Campbell, Ky. ‘I’ll say, “There is no Kurdistan. There is Iraq.” ’ ”

Funny, non-Kurdish Iraqis don’t have a problem referring to the Kurdistan Region of Iraq as Kurdistan. In fact, even the regime of Saddam Hussein had no problem with Kurdistan being Kurdistan; official Iraqi documents long referred to the region as KAR — Kurdistan Autonomous Region. (Is there a region called New England?)

[The article said:] “ ‘They’re going to have to change,’ [Benjamin] said. ‘They want to have a lot of autonomy under the new constitution and the new government, but I think they’ll go along with it. They can become a good part of this nation.’ ” Actually, the fact is, all Iraqis will have to change, including those who will have to adjust to the new Kurdistan realities.

Otherwise, a good article.

Stafford Clarry
Erbil, Kurdistan-Iraq

DOD personnel system unjust

The Department of Defense’s proposed National Security Personnel System of rewarding employees considered “worthy” threatens to undermine workers’ collective bargaining and due process rights in the name of “national security.” This is Bush cronyism at its finest, designed to promote a system of amiable sock puppets, like those coached by Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Allison Barber during President Bush’s scripted videoconference propaganda stunt last month. It’s a system reminiscent of 1933 Berlin, when Adolf Hitler held a massive May Day celebration for workers as a ruse to outlaw free labor unions.

Let’s apply the NSPS to Bush, evaluating his administration on its goal to end “the politics of personal destruction,” unite the country with compassion, and bring honor and dignity to the White House. In fact, the Bush administration has smeared those with opposing views, a foreshadow of the NSPS’s hidden agenda — conformity or else. Recipients of Bush’s smear campaign include Rep. John Murtha, Joseph Wilson, CIA agent Valerie Plame, John McCain, Max Cleland, Richard Clarke, Eric Shinseki, Anthony Zinni, John Kerry, the National Education Association, Gold Star Mothers and residents of New Orleans. So much for unity and “Christian” compassion.

Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby Jr., remained on the federal payroll up until his indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during a war that resulted from the worst national security breach in U.S. history — Sept. 11. Karl Rove, under investigation for passing classified information about Plame to the media — information that goes to the heart of America’s security — remains Bush’s most trusted adviser.

As a retired veteran and civilian employee, I’m treated as a national security threat, yet Libby and Rove aren’t. Cheney can advocate the torturing away of America’s national security, Bush can make “a mistake” of killing/maiming more than 100,000 innocent people — Iraqi and “coalition” — while I’m either to march in lock step or find work elsewhere.

Just as the Patriot Act has nothing to do with patriotism, Bush’s regressive labor proposal, the NSPS, has nothing to do with national security. Furthermore, it is unjust and un-American, and must be rejected.

Edwin Thornburg
Würzburg, Germany

Troops need Harvey’s help

To Francis Harvey, secretary of the Army (“Army secretary: Patriotism, pride, not money, motivate U.S. soldiers,” article, Nov. 10, Okinawa edition): Money isn’t everything but …

Mr. Secretary, I agree that service to your country should be paramount and you should be serving with honor. However, when many junior enlisted soldiers qualify for welfare, when a garbage truck driver in Chicago makes $75,000 a year and up, when many of the civilian contractors working side by side with the soldiers are making more than $100,000 a year, then we start losing our balance and are not really looking out for the welfare of our soldiers. We must also consider the real cost of employment of those contractors, as they work for “cost plus” corporations — and we all know what that means, sir.

Soldiers are not only responsible for the lives of the soldiers they charge into battle with, but also for millions of dollars of high-tech equipment during peacetime and while serving on the battlefield. Most soldiers are charged with a far greater responsibility than most politicians and certainly more than a garbage truck operator. Pay raises should be on a progressive scale from the bottom to the top. Instead of token 3 percent pay raises across the board, pay raises should be progressive with rank. Progressive raises at 5 percent to 6 percent are more appropriate and should be written into the budget with relative ease since “all politicians” claim to be supporting the troops.

Pride in service to your nation and to the world is in the hearts of all good soldiers, Mr. Secretary, but as a soldier leaves his family in the rear and puts his life on the line, he must know that he is also serving his family financially. As our leader, you are the one person we are counting on to help us maintain that balance: serving our country with honor while providing honor to our families. As you count on us on the battlefield, we count on you in the Pentagon.

Staff Sgt. R.W. Shirley
Camp Cedar, Iraq

Price of gas in States

According to the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration, the average price for a gallon of regular unleaded fuel today is $2.20. This price includes a federal excise tax, state excise tax, local taxes, sales taxes, and the service station markup.

According to the EIA, these taxes and markups account for approximately 31 percent of the price of a gallon of gas — or about 68 cents a gallon at today’s average of $2.20. That’s a wholesale price of $1.52 a gallon.

Does the Army and Air Force Exchange Service pay all of these taxes? I doubt it but, even if it does, why are its prices still way above $2.20 a gallon? The answer is that they’re the only game in town other than buying on the economy.

I challenge Stars and Stripes to do an investigative article breaking down just how AAFES prices the gas it sells. Enlighten your readers or expose AAFES for price gouging. By the way, it will be interesting to see the price for a gallon of gas on Dec. 1. Will AAFES dare rip us off again?

Bill Kile
Darmstadt, Germany