Posted by
Sue on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 7:46:48 PM
Here is my brother-in-law's reply to my brother regarding the email I posted about. I have left out their names and locations because I don't think it's necessary. And, I have only corrected a very few misspellings. These two are my favorites. I cannot write better to express my thoughts and both have experiences I have not. As you can guess, I agree with the following:
Hi,
Great to hear from you and to reread that portion of
the Declaration of Independence. I have always found inspiration from both our
Declaration and Constitution. I also reread Lincoln's Gettysburg Address which
is absolutely great stuff. Let me answer your last question first and then
make two comments.
I would forever prefer to prepare for war and never
have to go to war. George Washington had a famous quotation that Ronald
Reagan made popular in the 1980's that went something like - Being prepared for
war is the best option to deter going to war." Now for two short
comments.
The choice of war or science is not a real world choice
when you have been attacked and when you enemies announce to the world and their
own people they seek to destroy us and our way of life. They have chosen
to attack our country and killed many besides Americans on 9/11. The
Muslim world and their organized religion has been taken over by a leadership
bent on Jihad. Science will not win hearts and minds. Science will
continue to develop and make discoveries that will help us fight and win.
In a true sense, the men like you are also on the front lines of this war
because what you discover tomorrow may save lives and win the day next year or
later. BUT in the end, the fighting is upon us and I'd rather see that
fight where it is rather return to our shores and see more children and many
innocent civilians killed. A non-binding resolution does nothing but even
Rep John Murtha stated clearly that it is the first step in getting funding
limited, just like our Congress did in 1973 and 1974. That is their
authority and that is what many on the Hill have stated their true objective
is. I find it interesting the same Democrats that raise the ethic and
civil war nature can't be won were the same Democrats in the 1990s that
encourage and supported the Clinton Administration going into the heart of ethnic
cleansing territory and putting our forces along side NATO into the Balkan CIVIL
WAR. They said at the time it was our "moral duty." We still have troops
there but it seems to be working. If it worked there but took 15 years, it
may work in Iraq if we continue to evolve and be creative in both our tactics
and processes of going after the bad guys. Leaving the field of battle is
with insurgents still in place and in numbers will create more hate, more
regional unrest, and eventually provide training grounds and camps for jihadists
to learn how to attack and kill us here at home. So in my humble opinion,
FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION. We need strong leadership and some b-partisan
thinking to create solutions. Instead we are getting a two year presidential
election. The future does not appear bright no matter who rules in DC.
Second point - The Geneva Convention was written
in a time of more traditional warfare. Gee, they actually had
formal declarations of war. When I went through SERE School, it was very
carefully explained that the military ID card was required and so was a
uniform. Today we face an enemy that is not even attached to a specific
government and hides itself in cells where ever it can. The net-centric
asymmetric nature of the conflict makes for more morally ambiguous and confusing
situations. Nevertheless, we should never stoop to tactics less than what
is high and holy. Torture is rarely an effective means for gathering
timely or accurate military intelligence. The current administration has
many views inside it and I have spoken with some including a man on SEN John
McCain's staff. The treatment of prisoners, whether covered under the
Geneva Code or not, must be a standard so high that we remain "that white palace
on the hill." At the same time, those who maintain the prisoners in Cuba
are being mistreated are correct generally but not on the location at the US
BASE. They need to visit the Raul and Fidel camps to see this
mistreatment, but if they were ever successful in getting there, they would be
inmates too.
I recently attended a Navy League breakfast where a
USMC Lt Col had just returned from one year detached duty (No FAMILY and is
married with three kids in school here). He reported a standard far in excess
than any common prisoner receives in most states here. This assessment
tracks with several recent international inspections of the facilities and the
treatment of the detainees. The Administration is perhpas correct to
protect us and the world from this men who were captured and identified as some
of the worse terrorist forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. I am troubled that
so many do not understand who they really are, what they have done and will
continue to do if released, and how well they are treated and how professional
the military guard forces are. You may not have heard this but the US Navy
was officially made senior military authority and placed in charge of prison
facilities overseas after the Abu Gra disaster. A Navy Read Admiral is in
charge and by all accounts that I have read and heard, the
facilities and treatment are superb. Now your statement that the
current Administration wishes to "abrogate these conventions" is either fair or
accurate. The actions shout and they have done much to resolve some of the
issues. BUT read the darn conventions on who is covered and
show me one sentence or phrase even states a terrorist in civilian attire that
blows up a bomb in a crowded civilian market is a covered. And
Nor is Jack the Ripper covered even when acting on orders of the
holiest imam. Read the Geneva Convention. I have.
And quite frankly, I feel it needs to be updated but there is no
international agreement on how to do that and there would be very little reason
to ask IRAN and others to sign something that they would be first
to say is 'Against the will of Allah."
One last point in all this. I have heard so many, even
John McCain, say that we have to go far beyond the code and convention so
that our troops will be also afforded the protections of POW in the future.
That did NOT work for the POW's of the Imperial Japanese forces.
That did not work for the POW's taken to Red CHINA in Korean War and
released in 1974 did it. That did not work of the general American POW
population in Vietnam. That did not work for Daniel Berg whose head
was chopped off in front of the video cameras. Jeff, we should take the
high rode, but we should never delude ourselves in thinking the enemy will do
likewise. Clearly they have not in the past and they are not abiding in sense to
that code today. And there's absolutely NO EARTHLY REASON to think that
tomorrow will be any different. As the French have said for many
centuries, "c'est la guerre." It's a nasty cruel business and that's why
we need the science. In the end, you see I think we agree but from
different perspectives and far different expectations.
Love,