Letters to the Editor for Monday, April 3, 2006

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)

Bush’s sorry legacy

Three years after “shock and awe,” now it’s called “the Long War,” just as the CATO Institute in 2003 said it would be.

Last month, President Bush casually informed Americans that troops would remain there past his second term, which ends on Jan. 20, 2009, and not a moment too soon.

What a disaster Bush will leave Americans when calculating the costs of his generational commitment to “democratize” the Middle East. Columbia and Harvard economics professors estimate the U.S. invasion/occupation of Iraq through 2010 will cost taxpayers $1 trillion, minimum.

In “The True Costs of the Iraq War,” Joseph Stiglitz (Columbia University professor of economics) states, “One cannot help but wonder: were there alternative ways of spending a fraction of the war’s $1-$2 trillion in costs that would have better strengthened security, boosted prosperity, and promoted democracy?”

And spared lives? Clearly, but at a loss of billions in contracts to Halliburton/KBR, Bechtel and the Carlyle Group, of which George H.W. Bush is senior adviser. If it weren’t for war, the Bush family empire would be bankrupt. Self-enrichment is why Bush and (British Prime Minister) Tony Blair were determined to launch an invasion against Iraq. That’s why Iran is next.

Bush has said that he wouldn’t be in Iraq if for a good reason. Bush isn’t in Iraq, and neither are members of his family. Some soldiers are on their third deployment and wish to be liberated from stop loss. Bush likely won’t initiate a “front-door” draft before the elections, which means more troop deployments until help — a new Congress and commander in chief — arrives.

Bush’s policy of touting peace and democracy while dropping bombs on oil-producing countries and promoting crony capitalism in an America deteriorating into a feudal backwater will be Bush’s legacy as the worst president in U.S. history.

Michele Winter
Würzburg, Germany

UCMJ helps ensure loyalty

Letters referencing the Uniform Code of Military Justice and political protest remind me of 1996 and 2000. I wonder where these self-righteous enforcers stood then.

I recall entering my work center at a joint service unit in 1996 to find an Army noncommissioned officer lecturing my troops to the effect that, if the election did not kick President Clinton out, he and a half million other soldiers knew how to “finish the job.” He was surprised to find that an Air Force senior NCO knew how to “lock heels.” The most disturbing part was that his command dismissed it, saying that it didn’t see any harm in his attitude.

I also remember talking with my division chief in late 2000 who stated to me and others that he was afraid of only one thing in that election: that George W. Bush would win the popular vote but not the Electoral College. He said if that happened, he expected the military to “step in” and set things right. He reacted with indignation when I informed him that such talk was treason and he questioned my loyalties. Not surprisingly, he did not advocate armed insurrection when what he feared did happen, only not to the guy he was supporting.

If criticizing the administration is wrong now, how many were guilty of doing it during Clinton’s administration?

The reason for UCMJ directives regarding political activities is to ensure loyalty is maintained to the mission. It shouldn’t matter which party is in charge. The prerequisites of the mission are independent of individual political affiliation.

By the same token, the activities of military personnel should never cast into doubt their ability to follow the directives of the commander in chief, to either the public or their fellow comrades in arms.

Michael Williams
Baghdad

Salute and enjoy ice cream

In response to “Garrison or combat zone?” (letter, March 28), the writer is absolutely right. Regulations do exist for a reason, they are meant to keep law, order and discipline. Some would argue that something small, such as saluting, is no big deal. I say that discipline starts with the small things.

We all know that discipline demonstrated is doing the right thing when no one is looking. I do agree that some of the things I’ve seen while deployed are funny (i.e. pressed and creased desert combat uniforms); but to lighten up on standards is not.

To every noncommissioned officer out there, I say: The standard is only as old as the last time you enforced it. That is one of our charges as noncommissioned officers, and to not enforce a standard would be demonstrating a lack of discipline.

It’s my opinion that if the standards (small ones and big) at Abu Ghraib prison had been enforced, there probably would not have been such a callous disregard for the rules and regulations.

The tactical situation should always be considered when making decisions, and alcohol and live ammo do not mix in any environment. Also, the rumor that saluting will give you tennis elbow and prevent you from enjoying your second helping of Baskin-Robbins is an old wives’ tale.

Sgt. Maj. Waldemar Estrella
Camp Taji, Iraq

Sad stop-loss glitches remain

Your March 22 article “GIs find stop loss can mean ‘stop pay’” really bothered me. I also was affected by stop loss in 2001 and the Air Force also stopped my pay, citing that I officially exited the Air Force on my original retirement date — even though I was prohibited from retiring. It took two months and some harsh words from a lieutenant general before the Air Force Personnel Office (not finance) fixed the problem.

At the same time, I can remember Stars and Stripes saying that nearly 2,500 military personnel under stop loss had problems getting paid. Even some of our congressional leaders got involved and chastised the Department of Defense for not taking care of its people.

Once all of the pay problems were cleared up, Department of Defense officials assured us that this would never happen again. How short their memory and promises live. Here they go again, finding some way to burn the hard-working men and women of the DOD after they burned them with stop loss. They should “stop pay” on every O-6 and above in DOD until these poor people start getting their regular pay.

Master Sgt. Rick O’Steen (retired)
Camp Red Cloud, South Korea

‘Boondocks’ unfit for Stripes

I am 11 years old and I find the cartoon “Boondocks” very offensive. I believe that it is about racism and is therefore unacceptable for all who read Stars and Stripes. I do not think it is good for people of different races to see this in your paper because the paper is supposed to be for people of all races, sizes and shapes.

When I see this cartoon, it makes me feel angry because it insults me. Please stop publishing it in your paper.

Jared Paul
Kadena Air Base, Okinawa

Pacific edition

Bush’s sorry legacy

Three years after “shock and awe,” now it’s called “the Long War,” just as the CATO Institute in 2003 said it would be.

Last month, President Bush casually informed Americans that troops would remain there past his second term, which ends on Jan. 20, 2009, and not a moment too soon. What a disaster Bush will leave Americans when calculating the costs of his generational commitment to “democratize” the Middle East. Columbia and Harvard economics professors estimate the U.S. invasion/occupation of Iraq through 2010 will cost taxpayers $1 trillion, minimum.

In “The True Costs of the Iraq War,” Joseph Stiglitz (Columbia University professor of economics) states, “One cannot help but wonder: Were there alternative ways of spending a fraction of the war’s $1-$2 trillion in costs that would have better strengthened security, boosted prosperity, and promoted democracy?”

And spared lives? Clearly, but at a loss of billions in contracts to Halliburton/KBR, Bechtel and the Carlyle Group, of which George H.W. Bush is senior adviser. If it weren’t for war, the Bush family empire would be bankrupt. Self-enrichment is why Bush and (British Prime Minister) Tony Blair were determined to launch an invasion against Iraq. That’s why Iran is next.

Bush has said that he wouldn’t be in Iraq if not for a good reason. Bush isn’t in Iraq, and neither are members of his family. Some soldiers are on their third deployment and wish to be liberated from stop loss. Bush likely won’t initiate a “front-door” draft before the elections, which means more troop deployments until help — a new Congress and commander in chief — arrives.

Bush’s policy of touting peace and democracy while dropping bombs on oil-producing countries and promoting crony capitalism in an America deteriorating into a feudal backwater will be Bush’s legacy as the worst president in U.S. history.

Michele Winter
Würzburg, Germany