US soldiers lives Not more valuable than innocent Iraqis

Dear Editor,

David Holcberg dishonors the Ayn Rand Institute in his letter “Hamstrung by the rules” Saturday, August 25, 2007 in his response to Diana West’s ("Killed by the rules," Op-Ed, Aug. 17).

It is not only immoral, foolish and counterproductive to put the “safety of American soldiers above anything else” it is un-American.

US soldiers don’t join the military for safety. They join it to make our nation, our constitution and the American people in safe. They volunteer their ‘service’ in this light. Their willingness to lay down their lives in support of that primary goal is their job and that what makes them so honorable.

Those willing to die for their country without dishonoring our nation’s commitment to protecting inalienable human rights and “liberty and justice for all” are the real heroes. Those soldiers who think their life is more valuable than an innocent civilian is no different than any other soldier around the world who chooses to defend a tyrannical leader and the murderous government they lead. I don’t believe killing innocent people is what Ayn Rand believed in or would have endorsed in any way.

We (and our soldiers) have the freedom to live and die for those things we believe in. Not the right to kill innocent people on the chance that it might save our individual lives.

Any willingness to kill innocent Muslims in order to protect our military soldiers occupying a Muslim nation only works to aid Osama Bin Ladin’s recruitment efforts everywhere in the world. Only by not “offending Muslim sensibilities” will we have any chance of winning the war against such radical murderous Muslims.

Chuck Woolery

China military in Haiti?

Alvin Rabushka accurately details “China’s emergence as an economic [and “military”] power” in his Aug 23^rd oped “US and China: Which Way?. When answering his own question “should the United States take a path of confrontation or seek out a path of cooperation?” Mr. Rabushka wisely decides on the path of cooperation. He then correctly suggests forging “a new global security framework” but his idea of forming a new “Monroe Doctrine” is fatally flawed.

The real problem Mr. Babushka should address was highlighted by Frank Gaffney Jr. in his oped “Eroding Sovereignty” the previous day. But, Mr Gaffney writes about ‘eroding US sovereignty’ like it’s a bad thing. Nothing is more problematic for the future in preventing or addressing a growing array of serious security threats than the “abstraction” of “sovereignty”.

The most accurate definition of national sovereignty that I’ve ever encountered is ‘the right of any nation, to do anything it wants, anywhere it wants, to anyone it wants, anytime it wants.’ This will always be a receipt for the global chaos. The global chaotic lawlessness that we now have that provides lethal advantage to terrorists, pollution, pandemics, poverty and international criminals.

Mr. Babushka suggests that the “US” take “responsibility for stability in the Western Hemisphere.” That is a brilliant idea but unlikely given our military might and limited financial resources already being over committed in the Middle East. And China has already established a military presence in the Western Hemisphere.

Last week I returned from Haiti where I was shocked to see a Chinese fag flying next to a UN flag over a UN military compound. China has the second largest military force in Haiti. According to a US Air force person I spoke to flying in our nation has fewer than a dozen US soldiers helping that trouble nation. I also witnessed a TV interview with a high ranking Chinese Military official in front the Haiti’s largest government building. Nearly a dozen armed Chinese soldiers with safeties off formed a perimeter around their commander as the interview rolled. Haiti, the poorest nation in our region, is providing China with an opportunity of the century because our worship of ‘national sovereign’ has prohibited the UN from having its own truly independent police force. And, our foreign policy that puts ‘national sovereignty’ above human rights is punishing the Haitian government with complete disregard for Haitian needs or Haitian human rights.

Only when the global protection of inalienable human rights takes precedence over the protection of the “abstraction” of national sovereignty will we have any real capacity for a ‘new global security framework”. For this we will need a global federalist doctrine, not another foreign policy based on the inherently flawed abstraction of sovereignty.

The Surge IS working. But not for us.

It sounds like the “surge” is working! But for who?

If I were Bin Ladin or an Al Qaeda strategist and wanted to:

a) continue killing American Soldiers instead of making the 9-11 mistake of killing American civilians

b) continue to drain finite US financial resources away from their domestic education, health, transportation infrastructure, border control and other vital elements of homeland security

c) continue to exacerbate political divisions within and between Americans, and

d) continue to benefit from the recruiting windfall of anti-American sentiment in both Arab nations and within the US itself…

I would insist that my murderous recruits, be they Sunni insurgents, foreign suicide recruits or Iranian Shiite allies slightly refrain from attacking American forces (or creating insecurity for the Iraqi people) . This would hopefully lul the American generals and the peace (or victory) loving American public into thinking the Surge was working…and only needed a little more time or a few thousand more troops to be successful.

I would ensure that the Iraq war environment be manipulated however possible so that American forces would be bogged down there as long as possible.

Is the Surge working? I think it is. But not for us.