SKIRTING THE ISSUE
Re: Jed Babbin’s Babes
at Arms:
Jed Babbin, as always, is right. The nation that tries to hide
behind its women’s skirts will not last long. Nor does it deserve
to. An Army and Marine Corps full of M-16 toting Hoo-ah! babes
raises some provocative questions about what exactly the hell we
are fighting for, nicht? Aside from the obvious fact that women
warriors are an offense to morality, honor, and good sense, there
are the practical questions. I’d hope not even General Patricia
Schroeder would argue against the obvious, to wit: if it takes six
men soldiers to pull a stuck Jeep out of the mud, it would take 12
women soldiers to do the same thing.
Then there’s the distraction factor, absolutely essential for
the survival of the species, but a bit of a bother in combat or
combat training. I don’t have to wonder whether if in the combat
information center of the destroyer I served on in the sixties —
had there been a lovely 19-year-old radarperson sitting knee to
knee with me in the dark instead a grungy guy with “USN” tattooed
on one bicep and a likeness of Miss Subic Bay on the other — would
I have had any attention left over for the blips on the screen? The
question answers itself.
— Larry Thornberry
Tampa, FL
Please, Mr. Babbin, exercise some measure of creative restraint
when writing about such hot button issues. I’m certain your
tongue-in-cheek mention of “the First Amazon Division” has by now
sent the television reality show writers scrambling for their
keyboards. My guess is you’ve spawned another cultural roadside
attraction along Rome’s headlong rush to the big bonfire. The image
of strong women in combat is no less ridiculous and less appealing
now than when I last viewed it at the drive-in movie in 1959.
And, as you so aptly noted, the bedrock principle of combat
squad cohesion is the issue upon which every other rests. You
wrote, “There is no way of knowing whether mixed gender teams can
function as well as all-male teams in close combat environment.” I
may not know from experience but I can venture an educated guess
regarding the lack of squad cohesion caused by young women in
combat dying while wearing their entrails as necklaces. I’ll
venture a further educated guess that this generation’s young men
and those of future generations are unprepared and unwilling to
deal with those combat realities.
Regardless of social “rights” or “wrongs,” women in combat will
unintentionally and apart from their physical limitations put
themselves and other soldiers at greater risk.
— Doc Watson
CANADA’S FINEST SYRUP
Re: Herbert London’s Oil
on Reserve:
Re: Herb London’s piece, it is also remarkable that the brief
mention in a Mark Steyn column, about a week ago, of
Chrétien’s family connection to the French oil company which
had the contracts with Saddam, has never made it to the front
pages. Why is that?
— Jameson Campaigne
Ottawa, IL
I am a Canadian living in Alberta, which as you noted has oil
deposits. We are the province that is in the best financial shape
of any in Canada because of this oil. It has been a very real
contributor to our goal of reducing the Alberta debt, among
others.
Our Premier Klein is a man much like President Bush — what you
see is what you get. He is well respected in Alberta, the type of
man who wrote to the American ambassador to ensure that America
knew Albertans did not agree with our Prime Minister’s decision to
not support America. The letter was sent before the ambassador
rebuked us for our behavior. This behavior was from our Prime
Minister and members of his party. Albertans have held rallies,
started websites, and even raised money for an ad to be placed in
USA Today letting Americans know where we stood in this
matter. 71% of western Canada support President Bush and the war.
Our population is 6-8% American in Alberta and we did not want them
to take any flak over the great divide of the western and eastern
thinking on this matter.
America knows the oil is here, and to my knowledge nothing has
been said regarding it. … If Washington wants our oil, I am sure
they will contact the Prime Minister, but it would take him about
three years to make a decision, you know! He could embark on a
mumbling exercise for a long time! He mumbles well!
Your suggestion has merit — and yes, it would be quite a
surprise to the Arab world, a significant surprise!…
The one thing I would like to see is American and Canadians
relationship be a partnership in all our endeavors in the future. A
new Prime Minister and time to get settled is necessary for us at
this time, but we will elect a leader who understands the meaning
of loyalty to our neighbors and is determined to create a military
that is as modern as a forces can be, with the latest equipment and
high military standards. Our soldiers are great, but it is
difficult to shoot an enemy with your finger after arriving on the
slow boat from Canada in the wrong uniform.
— Carole Graham
Apropos “Oil on Reserve” by Herbert London, exactly why is Canada a
more dependable trading partner than is Saudi Arabia? The Saudis
frequently have increased production — to their own detriment —
to benefit the U.S. economy, while the Canadians have…what?
— David Govett
Davis, CA
DIXIE CHIQUITAS
Re: Enemy Central’s Among
the Feather-Brained:
Wouldn’t it be more apt to say that as a result of the
Entertainment Weekly cover, the Dixie Chicks were “tarts
and featherless”?
— Dwayne Baptist
Fredericksburg, VA
FUZZY MATTER
Re: The Washington Prowler’s Cutting
Thomas:
How can he plan to cut dividend taxes more than the Bush plan
which calls for elimination of the tax? Is Thomas planning a
negative tax that gives matching funds for dividends?
— Hareendra Yalamanchili
GREAT STUFF
Re: Jackie Mason & Raoul Felder’s Plain
Speak:
What a great article. Things articulated perfectly what many of
us have thought for years! How can this be seen by even more
people? Wonderful! Keep it up.
— Alida Lumpkins
Great piece. I am from Texas, I understand every word the President
“says.” I understand very few words of the Hollywood Elite. Must be
my lack of drugs.
— Larry Rutherford
Excellent article (“Plain Speak,” April 25). I could not agree
more. I’m a history major and have followed politics and kept up
with my history knowledge since I was 14. (I’m 31.) Suffice to say
there are many uninformed opinionated opinions out there. I always
dread debating with people about the war in Iraq for a myriad of
reasons. I classify them as follows:
1) The “I never read history or politics books because I am too
smart for them” crowd. Impossible to have an enlightened discussion
with. They have all the answers and you do not despite your obvious
grasp of the subject matter. They are on a higher plane and you’re
not and you will never reach it. These people typically roll their
eyes in condescension and eschew anything that is written by
brilliant historians or scholars.
2) The ” I never follow politics or history but have the right
to my opinion” crowd. These people are frustrating. Because they
consider you boring in non-eventful times they tend to dismiss or
even demean your expertise or knowledge. They’ll come out with a
“Bush is a dumb vengeful warmongering gremlin who is out to trade
blood for oil” or my personal favorite, “This war is illegal,” and
challenge you with such confidence you would not know where to
begin dissecting it. It’s scary. When you try to engage them they
claim you are naive or are surprised. As one person recently told
me — and I quote — “You? But you’re smart? You are planning to do
your Masters and you don’t think Bush is a fool?” Considering that
this person never read a book in his life and did not know who Vico
or Spinoza was, it was quite a remarkable statement.
3) The “Lost and Bewildered” crowd. These people claim to be
centrists. “Saddam is bad but we’re no better” line of thinking
grips their philosophical (or lack thereof) base. They are
literally sweating they are so confused.
4) The “All of a sudden expert” genre. These people are the
best. They are generally harmless and you tolerate them because
they are trying. There are two types: The arrogant and the humble.
The arrogant will demand proof. Most are fabulous speakers and
manage to have you going in circles. Despite their utter ignorance.
I think they fit the type of person in the article. The humble
typically ask questions and offer thoughts. Sometimes very
insightful.
5) The ones that have different opinions but engage you and are
thoughtful. They are well read and informed. These people are the
best because you not only learn about the subject at hand but
sometimes about yourself in the process.
Thanks for reading. I’m glad to see I’m not the only one that
has encountered such moments. Please forgive my grammar as I wrote
this straight from the top of my head without the practice of proof
reading as I am at work and on my way out.
Kindest regards,
— Alessandro Nicolo
Montreal, Quebec
SWISS MIST
Re: Kurt Schori’s letter in Reader Mail’s New
Intelligence:
In your latest Reader Mail section, was a letter from an
esteemed citizen of Switzerland — perhaps the French or German
speaking sections — complaining of all the terrible things that
the liberation or Iraq will now bring. I know they say not to “feed
the trolls,” but this one is just so cute I couldn’t help
myself.
“With high efficiency, secular Iraq has been wiped out, the
civil records of an entire nation annihilated (apart from the oil
ministry’s files).”
So, the correspondent is suggesting, if I am reading this
correctly, that we leave people in oppression, because we might
destroy their birth certificates while liberating them?
“The cultural memory and national treasures of Iraq — unique in
the world, preserved throughout many thousand years against other
invaders — bombed, looted, destroyed completely with more success
than the Taliban had in Afghanistan. Libraries, musea,
everything.”
Is the correspondent referring to the fakes that Saddam
manufactured to prove his descent from Nebuchadnezzar? Or the
genuine pieces which were carried off by fleeing Baathists to fund
their new villas in Syria and France?
“The Islamic infrastructure carefully kept intact and spared
from any ‘degradation”.’”
Perhaps the correspondent would feel better if we had leveled
mosques too. Equal opportunity destruction, and all that.
“An Islamic nation falling back into medieval times spiritually.
Whoever believes that you can build a democracy worthy of its name
with 60% of a people that revels in beating their backs with chains
and cutting their bodies until the blood streams all over, is an
ignorant fool.”
No, the ignorant fool is the man who suggests that 60% of the
citizens of Iraq all think the same way, behave the same way, and
believe in their religions equally and with identical
interpretations. He is a man who assumes that, because you are a
Shi’ite, you are not an individual, with your own mind, doubts, and
soul. That is the most supreme of ignorance, and might I say,
bigoted and racist too.
“A country polluted with war chemicals, littered with cluster
bombs and the like that will, long after peace is declared, maim
and damage the population.”
And how many would have died, had we done nothing? I put to you
that, had the majority of the ordinances we used in Iraq indeed
been “cluster bombs and the like,” we would still have killed fewer
people than would have died at the hands of a Baathist firing squad
in a single year, for what they thought and said.
“As I said: the French, the Germans, the Russians, many others
warned in time. The neo-conservative Americans in their superiority
mania were not willing to listen. They are going to pay the
price.”
No, the French, the German, and the Russian governments wanted
to protect their oil contracts and cover up their arms sales, as
well as oppose a power that they do not understand, and therefore
fear. It is a supreme irony to hear a European voice warning us of
the price we will pay!
Perhaps this is merely another example of the complete lack of
understanding for history which is indicative to the modern drive
for a united, pacifistic Europe.
— Alexander Craghead
Portland, OR
