Not MLK’s Morality
I find Obama’s escalation of the war in Afghanistan reprehensible and at odds with the praise given in the article "Reviewing the Obama Presidency" (WIN, Fall 2010). How does one account for his "routine expression of personal nonviolence"? Does an expression of nonviolence stop at the U.S. borders?
Or as Remick and Alter both observe, "Obama is very centered morally." How is killing thousands by drones morally centered? Then the article ends with his taking important steps "providing all people with civil, human, and economic rights." Do not the people in the Middle East where we continue to occupy and kill have any civil, human, and economic rights?
The article seems to want to make excuses for Obama's criminal behavior by claiming his entry into the White House after Bush’s mess gives him carte blanche to in effect continue Bush’s policies of warmongering and even outdoing Bush.
Please remember that as Commander in Chief, Obama has the power to stop all wars and get out of the 800 or more countries where we station troops. I doubt Martin Luther King, on whose shoulders Obama supposedly stands, would be partial to even a minute of warmaking.
I also question how an organization such as the War Resisters League can countenance such behavior from anyone, especially a president who is no better than a war criminal of the highest order.
Denise D’Anne
San Francisco, Calif.
Obama’s Crusades
In "Reviewing the Obama Presidency," the "just war" theory attributed to Reinhold Niebuar actually goes back centuries to St. Augustine. It has been used to justify everything from the Crusades to the genocide of American Indians. Mussolini declared a "just war" on the Ethiopians. Hitler declared a "just war" on the Poles, Russians, and--Americans! Obama is a warmonger just like Bush. By and large his first two years have been a failure. He is a poor offensive player. Whether or not he can play defense—we shall soon see. He has the blood of thousands of innocents on his hands. Just like Bush.
Robert Zani
Tennessee Colony, Texas
Why?
Perhaps Wendy Schwartz could write an article explaining why a longtime pacifist activist plans to vote for a presidential candidate who is running multiple wars and covering up for Bush administration officials who committed torture. How does that advance the cause of peace in the short term or the long term?
Bob Brister
Via the Web
Prisoner of War
I read the fall 2010 issue of your magazine, which I enjoyed. I appreciate the good work you do.
I served 19 months in Vietnam until I was shipped home on a stretcher. I sustained numerous wounds during combat operations, and I was awarded a few Purple Heart medals from the President of the United States.
I was back in the United States for 18 months before I got into trouble with authorities. At that time, no one knew about post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which caused most of my problems and ultimately ruined my life. I’ve now served most of my life in a maximum security prison, where the administration views and treats prisoners as subhuman beings. I’ve served all of these years, yet I’ve never physically harmed anyone, and I’ve made restitution on everything possible.
After I finished school, I was brainwashed by the Marine Corps, and I was trained and ordered to fight in a war. I shed my blood numerous times for this nation and government, yet I’ve been buried alive and forgotten all of these years by that same government. I’m an example of a “prisoner of war” due to PTSD in the same country that I helped to defend! War is wrong, and so is a callous and indifferent government that sends its kids to fight their wars and incarcerates them upon their return when they are enlightened by their experiences and no longer want to fight or harm people in other countries where we shouldn’t be sent.
Woody Raymer
Florence, Colo.
DADT for Everyone
The "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy of the military, recently repealed, was clearly discriminatory toward homosexuals. Indeed, that was its purpose.
It is said that many soldiers fear that a homosexual might make a sexual advance toward him or her. Such fear can lead to anger and then to disunity among troops. With morale even lower than it already is, the military might become completely ineffective.
The same, however, can be said about openly heterosexual soldiers. Many female soldiers fear sexual advances from heterosexual male soldiers, and many male soldiers fear sexual advances from heterosexual female soldiers, particularly their superiors. This fear, unlike the fear of homosexual advances, is well founded: there are many documented cases of sexual abuse and even rape in the military committed by heterosexuals. Moreover, sexual abuse of civilians by heterosexual soldiers has been a recurring problem in the military.
The solution, therefore, is not to end the "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy, but to extend it fairly to everyone. No one in the military should be allowed to make evident his or her sexual orientation, either by word or deed. Anyone clearly demonstrating a sexual interest in someone, much less entering into a sexual relation with someone—no matter how temporary—should be discharged from the military. In this way we can rid the military of those who might impede its mission while dealing fairly with all Americans.
Richard "Arf" Epstein
Socorro, N.M.
