Letter to the editor

by | Feb 18, 2006 | Stress Blog

As the assistant editor – or something – of Antiwar.com, I’m the guy who answers the letters to the editor that are directed to AWC in general rather than a particular writer. Generally they make completely unfounded assertions, and then I sort of go off.

It usually goes something like this for example:

Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 09:57:33 -0800 (PST)
>From: “Antiwar.com — Backtalk”
>Reply-To: Backtalk@antiwar.com
>Subject: Fwd: Letter to the Editor: Right cause, wrong strategy
>To: Eric Garris , Matthew Barganier
>X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.80/1238/Wed Jan 11 02:19:06 2006
> clamav-milter version 0.80j
> on
>X-Virus-Status: Clean

>> > Concerned has a letter for the editor..here are the
>> > results!
>> > Sir,
>> >
>> > I read “Who We Are” and found it compelling and
>> > worthy. I differ, however, with you premise of being
>> > “anti-war.” If one perceives the opposite of
>> > anti-war as anti-peace, you can see the problem with
>> > your name. From reading “Who We Are,” I think you
>> > are against unjust war, which any thoughtful and
>> > reasonable person would be.
>> >
>> > History demonstrates that fighting Nazis or
>> > terrorists is the appropriate response. I realize my
>> > reasoning would make you change the graphics on your
>> > mugs and shirts and so forth, but I think clear
>> > thinking is more important than catchy names and tag
>> > lines. If Iran’s radical theocracy forces the West
>> > to fight for its existence, do you wish to be on the
>> > wrong side of history? I urge you to uphold your
>> > premise and reconsider your name.
>> >
>> > I hope that you take my criticism in the spirit
>> > intended.
>> >
>> > Concerned

Please for give the delay in this response, and please believe me when I say that your letter is taken in the spirit you intended. I hope my answer will be received in the same light.

Of course, you are correct that we oppose unjust war. All of us at Antiwar.com are thankful for the sacrifice of the generation of 1776, who risked all to seceded from a criminal empire. The problem is that very few, if any, of the wars the US has fought since then have been just. Our founders, Eric Garris and Justin Raimondo (both Republicans by the way), felt very confident when buying the domain name back in 1995 that any war the US would be in in the foreseeable future would be either a far-fetched “humanitarian” mission of the one-worlder Clintonites or an imperial mission of the ex-Trotskyoid neoconservatives – in either case, far from a real national defense. It seems they called it right.

Just so we’re clear: If the British started massing troops in Canada and then invaded Upstate New York, we would be all for using whatever means were necessary to repel their invasion. The thing is that there are no states that are a threat to us. Only stateless radicals who are – judging from the record of who’s been caught by whom since 9/11 – best dealt with by police and intelligence guys, rather than the military.

Iran is not, and could never be, a threat to the United States. According to Bush and Cheney’s CIA it would take them 10 years to make a nuke if they started trying to right now. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453_pf.html (there is no evidence that they have – none http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48659 ) Then they would have to figure out a way to deliver it, since right now their best rockets only go a couple thousand miles. Al Qaeda are extremist Salafist Sunnis, they consider the Shi’ite Ayatollahs to be the worst of blasphemers of heretics. There is no evidence that the government of Iran has or would work with al Qaeda in any capacity or vice versa. You may recall that one of the missions accomplished at Michael Ledeen and Larry Franklin’s meeting with Iranian arms dealer Manechur Gorbanifar and Italian intelligence in Rome in December 2001, was to scuttle a deal being worked out with Iran to hand over al Qaeda guys they’d arrested in exchange for some MEK terrorists (who now work for us) – it worked. http://tinyurl.com/cojbt

When you say “history shows” that sending the military to fight terrorism is a good choice, I must beg to differ. They let bin Laden and Zawahiri and their immediate entourage – the only real legitimate targets in this war – escape from Tora Bora. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307237400/102-3262242-4240166?v=glance&n=283155 Those two are still alive and well in our allied state, Pakistan, and continue to crank out inspirational messages for millions of potential recruits to see on TV and hear on the radio. Meanwhile, we’ve invaded a country that was ruled by a secular dictator with no ties to international terrorism, and “changed his regime” for 3 – one made up of the various competing Kurdish death squads known as the Peshmergas, who are “ethnically cleansing” Kirkuk of any Arabs or Turkmen when they’re not shooting each other, the Sunni triangle is now run by the various local Imams, rather than secular Ba’athist types, and al-Musab al-Zarqawi and his local al Qaeda group have become the “new generation” of anti-American terrorists. These new terrorists are the result of the war, not the reason for it – 99% of them anyway, according to the Saudis and Israelis http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0718/dailyUpdate.html The CIA agrees http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28876-2005Feb16.html so does the Royal Institute for International Affairs http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2005/07/riding_pillion.html and the former head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit http://citypages.com/databank/27/1315/article14125.asp Robert A. Pape, after studying every single individual suicide bomber on earth between 1980 and 2004, concluded beyond a doubt that the only times that suicide bombers can be recruited is when their home country is being occupied by foreign troops. This is why all the 9/11 hijackers were from countries that are friendly to us, and none were from Iran, Iraq or Syria. http://antiwar.com/horton/?articleid=6720 In the South of Iraq, we have now reversed the position of Ronald Reagan, and helped Iran finally win that war which we had supported Saddam against a generation ago. The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and Da’wa Party that now rule most of Iraq and hold all the top positions in the new government were created by the Ayatollah Khomeini to spread his Shi’ite revolution into Iraq. Now the US has accomplished it for them.

All this has cost more than half a Trillion dollars, almost all of it borrowed from foreign governments. This is not the way to fight a stateless network of terrorists, unless your goal is make sure there’s a never-ending supply of them.

You also say in your letter that “history shows” the wisdom of American intervention in WWII, but perhaps you meant, “most history books show,” since, there are, of course, differing views on this. Though it is an unpopular thing to say, since the enemies in that war were the embodiment of totalitarian slavery, it is my opinion – though not necessarily that of everyone at Antiwar.com – that all American intervention in that war accomplished was the rescue of the Soviet Union – who’s government was already guilty of the forced starvation of millions of individuals in Ukraine, among other atrocities. Nazi Germany was doomed anyway, if the US had stayed out the two tyrannies would’ve destroyed each other. By the time our troops got there, the enemy was mostly old men, little boys and conscripts of the “lesser” conquered people. All the “Aryan Supermen” were dead already. With all the lend-lease welfare, and the pressure taken off Russia’s Western front, Stalin was able to not only survive, but take all of Eastern Europe and help Mao win in China. The death toll as the result of our “victory” was 100,000,000 souls. Had we stayed out the most likely result would have been the defeat of the Soviets by the Nazis followed by the defeat of the Nazis by the Europe and Asia-Wide insurgency, Britain and their own stupid national-socialist economic system. Instead we got the Cold War and all its bloody consequences (such as, for example, the “Arab-Afghan” Mujahideen – otherwise known as al Qaeda).

By the end of WWII, America was changed forever. Washington, D.C. had permanently established itself as the center of economic and political power in the United States. Garet Garrett called it Ex-America http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0870044427/102-5386855-7407364?/antiwarbookstore way back then: a massive warfare/welfare/regulatory/national security state, the final reduction of the several states to the status of large counties under “federal” control, a permanent military-industrial complex, and the inheritance of all the Western empires, plus Japan’s. War could be declared by the president or the United Nations Security Council, and the Constitution was no longer amended when politicians decided they needed more power

Listen to The Scott Horton Show