...and, mea culpa

Submitted by Merry Whitney (United States), Mar 4, 2009 at 20:36

Dear Ianus,

I remembered, after posting that response (oops), and you're right about bin Ladin's activities in Afghanistan circa 1980's --- and yes, we (US) did train and arm him, I think during the Reagan Administration. Our interest was in stopping the USSR, which eventually was accomplished. And yes, there were unintended consequences. My own tendency re: bin Ladin is to put the blame on the Clinton Administration, because by that time we were fully aware of bin Ladin's agenda, and we had opportunities to take him out, but the official who could've and should've given the green light said "No."

As to anything Afghanistan beyond that which directly affects U.S. interests, I'm just out of my league in any discussion and I'll defer to your obvious awareness. It wasn't until after 9/11 that I knew anything about the place other than the destruction of the giant statues (which made me sick).

On the other hand, US foreign policy is supposed to be based on US National interests. I don't apologize for that. I only wish I could have a scintilla of confidence that US National interests will be at least a consideration to our current Administration, and I dearly hope I'll be proven wrong in my best guess on that score..

I can't argue with you regarding Kosovo and Bosnia --- my take at the time was that it was a "wag the dog" action to deflect attention from a domestic scandal, and when I realized who we were apparently backing, I thought it a travesty because their Serbian "enemy" had covered our backside during WWII. I quite frankly believed we were on the wrong side if we had any business taking a side.

I don't hold a high opinion of Amnesty International, et al; Those "do gooder" groups are seldom interested in "doing good" when the abusers are aligned with their own political interests (which seems to boil down to annihilation of freedom and liberty). And, the only lawyers interested in "presumption of innocence" are criminal defense practitioners, and I'm not convinced theirs is a principled stand as opposed to a legal strategy.

You seem to think I'm an apologist for Islamism; I'm not. To me, it seems self-evident that no one can serve God by doing evil; to do evil is to serve evil, and that's true whether a "true believer" is strapping on a suicide vest or blowing up an aborition clinic. I have to think that using God's name to murder His creatures and savage his Creation, must really tick Him off.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".