Don Ray’s frustration in obtaining answers from his leaders in Congress (Globe, Dec. 22) is certainly shared by this letter sender.
Last October, a letter I sent to our representative and two senators attempted to convince them not to support the sending of additional troops to Afghanistan. Sen. Claire McCaskill did not reply; Sen. Kit Bond’s reply was probably a form letter in which he spoke in generalities and his faith in Gen. McChrystal.
Rep. Roy Blunt’s short letter expressed a need to “secure” Afghanistan and he wanted an “articulated strategy” from the commander-in-chief. It is regrettable that he and his fellow members of Congress cannot articulate specific answers to constituents’ questions.
In not receiving answers to specific questions, the following second letter was sent to Rep. Blunt and a copy was forwarded to President Obama. Now, weeks later, neither has replied. Does it not seem rational to assume that all people supporting our continuing involvement in the Middle East (politicians and Globe readers) should be able to write specific answers to the following questions. Try it!
My letter to Blunt, dated Nov. 3, follows:
Dear Mr. Blunt:
Your reply, Oct. 27, was apparently a form letter that you and your staff send to constituents opposed to our presence in Afghanistan. Is that not true?
Regardless, now asked are specific questions in hope that you will “provide specific answers” instead of just saying we must depend on Gen. McChrystal’s opinion.
First, what is the “Global War on Terror” of which you speak? The war, as it appears, is largely the United States’ war against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. “Global” involves the whole world, while we and reportedly a few thousand NATO troops are fighting the Taliban.
Second, in your letter you mixed the al-Qaida terrorist with the Taliban of Afghanistan. These are two different entities. Barnett Rubin must have been accurate in telling how one member of Congress expressed great surprise when Mr. Rubin informed the congress person that the “Taliban were not the people who attacked the World Trade Center.”
Third, you stated that “we must give our military commanders the opportunity to ‘secure’ Afghanistan.” We have given the military establishment eight years. Is that not an opportunity? How long is long enough? Sometimes progress is knowing when to stop.
And what do you mean by secure? Is it synonymous with the word stabilize which some politicians and military generals use? Do the two words mean having all the Pashtun Afghans surrendered or dead, that all the tribal warlords turn over their weapons and give allegiance to one government, or does it mean that we build schools for Afghan children, water supplies, and pay lease money to tribal leaders and various countries for their neutrality? Maybe secure to you means that the Taliban is driven out of Afghanistan borders to another country (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan) where they will likely continue to infiltrate back into their country. Do we chase them after they flee Afghanistan?
Fourth, just how many troop increases are you willing to support? If 40,000 additional soldiers do not prove adequate, are you willing to increase our presence to 400,000 soldiers? Is this not a valid consideration as we continue to pursue 25,000 Taliban rebels? With our 100,000 international personnel and working with 200,000 (not very capable) Afghan security forces and police, why do we need more troops and greater odds?
Sir, I apologize for asking several specific questions and seeking specific answers, but you surely must have formulated answers to these kinds of questions — before supporting a war that continues to cost American lives and billions of dollars.
This constituent looks forward to your reply.
Thank you.
Bob Steere lives in Joplin.
