[Peace-discuss] COL Hack

[Dlind49 at aol.com]

Subj:   Hack's *Voice Of The Grunt* 2002-09-25 ~ Letters
Date:   9/25/02 1:46:01 PM Central Daylight Time
From:   SendMeHack

  --3--  Letters
          [We don't print names of writers still active military in any 
capacity unless they insist that we do.  We DO sometimes share comments/views 
that we don't agree with because this section is to let you in on other 
readers' thoughts.]
                ________________________________

The Enemy of Our Enemy

>> Colonel: It might be worth your while to reread the Aprile Glaspie case. 
As you will recall, Ms Glaspie was instructed by State to assure Iraq's F.M. 
Tarik Aziz back in 1990 that the US had no critical interests in border 
rectifications in the Gulf area. After all, the US had just assisted Saddam 
to attack and wage war on Iran in order that Iraq might secure both banks of 
the Tigris. 

When it turned out that the border Saddam had in mind was that between Iraq's 
old province Kuwait and Iraq, well, we know what happened. Glaspie's 
discussions with Aziz were disavowed, and all communications between her and 
State were sealed. When she was recalled and forced to resign as ambassador, 
she was refused access to the official correspondence that would have proven 
her case, and cleared her of the charge of lying. 

As long as Saddam was doing battle with those we wanted chastised, he was 
fine. Like much else in the Mid East policies we pursue, we have created most 
of the problems we now confront. 

One further note: It is by no means certain who used what gas against the 
Kurds in that infamous gassing espisode. In any case the characterization of 
Kurds as "Saddam's own people" is false. They are as alien to Iraqis as they 
are to the Turks and Iranians. The Kurds have been in near constant rebellion 
for the past 75 years, against everyone in the region. They are loyal to no 
nation but their own. That sounds familiar, doesn't it?  Cheers! 

Neil Huff <<
                ________________________________

Who's In Control of What?

<< Hi COL Hackworth:
 
I read your colums via email as they come out, and would like to let you know 
that I and probably many others agree with the letter submitted (on this last 
email) by the person named only as "Luster". He's right on point.
 
My own feelings are that this whole Homeland Security mess is really part of 
a master plan for the elite in the Govt to essentially "take control" of the 
country any way they can. HS is a pretense for this. Our security was 
generally very good before HS came along. Our intel was flawed though, or at 
least that is what we are being led to believe. As an intel type, I sense 
that it wasn't flawed at all. It was known, but allowed to happen. Why? Well, 
the economy at home was in the can, and folks weren't happy. This was a 
convenient ruse to get people's mind off of home problems, and on something 
else. It also served to "unite" the American people. (It worked for Pearl 
Harbor, so why shouldn't it have worked again, 50 years later?). 

Since then, I think they are less united, and less concerned with Bush & Co's 
war on terrorism. Now, Bush and his buds are creating yet another "ruse" for 
us by attemping to stick it to Iraq. The subject of WMD, if it is that 
serious, also expands to N. Korea, China and Russia and maybe even to their 
much-coddled Israel who you can bet has them too. Why not pick on those guys? 
Probably because the elite know that those countries will fight back, and 
we'll get our butts kicked. Small countries can do a lot of damage too -- 
Vietnam proved that. 
 
I am concerned that the US is becoming an Imperial Miltary power, sort of the 
way Japan and Germany were in the 1940s. Imperial Powers have a bad habit of 
running amok in the world thumping anyone who disagrees with them, or anyone 
they don't like......and in the end, all it does is make more enemies. It 
doesn't promote democracy, or serve the causes of peace. Somewhere in the 
puzzle, the US is losing in everything it stands for.
 
As for Israel, it might as well be the 51st state for us. Visualize the 
American flag with the blue field now a lighter blue, and with the Star of 
David in place of the 50 stars. Gives you some idea of whose really running 
this country.......and it certainly doesn't appear to be the American people 
anymore.
 
Dave
US Army (Ret)
Vietnam, Grenada and Panama vet >>
                ________________________________

War with Iraq: the Constitutional and Moral Questions

>> In the last few days of August, warlike statements by the President and 
Vice President have focused national attention on two questions: Should the 
United States force a "regime change" in Iraq by a preemptive action of some 
sort, in effect declaring war on Iraq?  And, are we prepared to accept a new 
principle of international law that the threat of use of weapons of mass 
destruction by a third-world nation justifies a unilateral attack by one 
nation in violation of the UN Charter?

This question comes before us on the eve of the emotional anniversary date of 
September 11, America's first taste of the type of civilian casualties our 
own bombardments have inflicted on others in Lebanon, Somalia, Kosovo, Iraq, 
Libya, the Sudan and Afghanistan in recent years.

More importantly, Congressional elections are only two months away.  The 
stakes in the November election are enormous.  Which political party will 
control the House and Senate during the final two years of the current 
Administration?  The President is understandably dedicated to staying in 
office and having a Republican majority in both houses.

I suggest that the political system, which we have been so fortunate to see 
evolve over the past 225 years, is not well suited for a quick decision on 
the serious matter of whether or not to go to war in violation of 
international law. I believe this because of two unique aspects of the 
American political system which have historically led us into grave 
difficulties in the past, notably in 1812 and 1964.

First, in times of domestic difficulty, presidents have learned that their 
popularity will most certainly increase if the people can be convinced that a 
foreign "enemy" threatens us.  And second, our elected representatives in 
Congress have learned to never ever challenge the decisions of a President, 
who is the Commander-in-Chief, during a war.

In such a situation, the Congress can be expected to act more like a herd of 
sheep than the sober decision-makers the Constitution intended when our 
forefathers assigned the war power solely to Congress. As Abraham Lincoln 
observed, Congress was assigned the war power because kings in domestic 
difficulties were only too prone to go to war to preserve their regimes.

There is another constitutional provision that has been largely ignored in 
the current debate. That is the Constitutional provision that treaties duly 
ratified by 2/3rds of the Senate become the law of the land, of equal stature 
with the Constitution. In 1945 we were proud to lead the world to a new type 
of treaty, the United Nations Charter, dedicated to the principle that no one 
nation should ever again invade another save with UN support.

In light of the tremendous human tragedies of World Wars I and II, the 
concept of world peace under international law seemed clearly preferable in 
1945 to a world where an Adolf Hitler, or any one country could create a 
holocaust.  In 1950 we went to war to support that principle.  If Sadaam 
Hussein is indeed another Hitler, we may well have to again go to war.  But 
should it be a unilateral decision on our part?

We live in a world of nuclear weapons, nerve gas, shoulder-fired missiles, 
and anthrax. They have been largely perfected by the technology of the United 
States and proliferated throughout the world by the U.S. dispensation as to 
which nation should be allowed to have certain weapons. Now, the capability 
no longer exists for one nation to be sure such weapons will not fall into 
the hands of a hostile entity.  Is it then the right of the most powerful 
country in the world to unilaterally decide who is hostile enough to justify 
war?

Whatever may be the threat from religious zealots who believe in the 
eradication of evil, as religious leaders have believed since the Spanish 
Inquisition, we are not at war. I suggest that the time to go to war against 
Iraq has not yet arrived, and that there is a prior action we should take 
before doing so. If we really want to achieve peace in the explosive 
Asian/Persian Gulf/Mediterranean region, perhaps we should turn our attention 
and efforts towards achieving the goal of UN Resolution 242, a Palestinian 
state with dignity for Palestinians as well as security for Israelis. That 
might be a good place to start.

It is a time for cool heads, not wartime hysteria such as existed in 1812 or 
was created in 1964 by Lyndon Johnson's deliberate lie to the people and the 
Congress that two U.S. destroyers had been attacked by the North Vietnamese 
in the Gulf of Tonkin.

The September 11 attack, which the President maintains put us "at war", came 
from the understandable perception in the countries of the Muslim and Arab 
world that we, not the Soviets, Iran or Iraq have become the "evil empire."  
Rightly or wrongly, ordinary people in the Muslim world believe that the U.S. 
has become an international bully with enormous material wealth, a dependency 
on drugs, and a hypocritical promotion of our own special brand of democracy 
while at the same time supporting monarchies and tyrants around the world.  
Our greatest evil, however, in the eyes of most of the countries of Europe 
and Asia has been our armed and financial assistance to over 50 years of 
Israeli repression of Palestinian aspirations.

Even our greatest patriots have to admit that these new Muslim and Arab 
"enemies" present a case of some merit.  We see Israeli infantry officers and 
soldiers refuse to serve in the occupied territories and, in their words, "to 
humiliate, terrorize, and remove" the Palestinian population. Meanwhile, the 
United States continues to veto all UN Resolutions critical of Israel, 
continues to countenance the controlled possession of weapons of mass 
destruction by Israel, and, worst of all, continues to finance Israeli 
settlements in Palestinian territory and the killing of Palestinians with 
U.S. supplied helicopters and weaponry. The Israeli settlements in the 
occupied territories, financed with U.S. dollars, not only destroy the U.S. 
reputation for fairness in world affairs, but also make it impossible for the 
Israeli political system to turn its back on militant settlers who now number 
over 300,000 people.

President Bush has committed the United States to Palestinian statehood, a 
statehood that cannot be achieved without the removal of those 300,000 
settlers. Despite that commitment,  he has done nothing to deter their 
continued growth as his father had the courage to do in 1991. The younger 
Bush calls Ariel Sharon "a man of peace". But to most of the world he is 
perceived as a war criminal who, like Pontius Pilate, stood aside willingly 
20 years ago this month and permited the massacre of over 800 Palestinians in 
the Shabra and Chatilla refugee camps.

So long as we unconditionally support the Israel of Ariel Sharon, we can 
expect to some day reap our own holocaust from young people who see moral 
victory in attacking the richest country in the world. We can only expect 
them to hate a country which is willing to use unmanned cruise missiles but 
is at the same time unwilling to see its own soldiers die in the same numbers 
as the civilians killed by our long range smart bombs.

As those who enjoy the American heritage of "Give me liberty or give me 
death" and "Live Free or Die," we should be the first to understand why young 
Arabs and young Muslims are willing to become suicide bombers against 
oppressive forces.  "Right or wrong, my country" were the words of an 
American Military hero, not those of an Iraqi or Saudi.

The high moral purpose we demonstrated during the last half century in UN 
leadership, foreign aide, and the ending of colonialism seems regrettably 
subordinated today to an obeisance to Aerial Sharon and his supporters in 
Israel and the United States.  There will be no peace until we return to the 
high ground and insist that Israel remove its settlers from the territories 
occupied since 1967, and that a Palestinian state be established amongst the 
family of nations, free of occupation by militant Jewish fundamentalists.

To attack, invade and occupy Iraq will require courage, not just of political 
leaders but from as many as 100,000 young Americans, many of whom will die in 
the process. If the cause is just and the threat of Hussein's use of weapons 
of mass destruction is as imminent as Vice President Cheney says it is, the 
casualties will be worth it. To attack Iraq without showing the courage to 
stand up to Israel, however, may doom our children and our children's 
children to the forces of hatred and revenge for generations.

We may be the greatest military power in the world today, but no American can 
ever feel safe again, here or abroad. For lasting security, we must return to 
an even-handed policy with the Israelis and the Palestinians, based on the 
principles of the United Nations Charter and Security Council Resolution 242. 
So strongly defended by George Bush senior, those resolutions are now nearly 
abandoned by his son who does not have the privilege of combat experience to 
temper his aggressive concept of peace through armed victory rather than by 
international law.

If peace is to be preserved, I suggest that it is time to stand up to Ariel 
Sharon before we attempt to deal with Saddam Hussein. Ironically, a regime 
change in Israel may offer more to world peace than one in Iraq.

Pete McCloskey

(BIO)
Mr. McCloskey served as a 2nd Lieutenant with the 5th Marines during the 
United Nations' first "peacekeeping" mission during the Korean War. He is the 
author of "Taking Hill 610" and is the recipient of the Navy Cross, Silver 
Star and two Purple Hearts. He was also the instigating whistle blower over 
Pat Robertson's fabricated combat stories, exposing the truth about his 
service during Korea. A Republican member of the U.S. Congress between 1967 
and 1983, he has taught Constitutional History and Stanford and Santa Clara 
Universities and currently practices law in Woodside, CA. <<