Letters from the Editor

OPINION:

Differences of opinion

I would like to make several points in the ongoing discussion by Bill Gertz, Frank Gaffney and now Diana West concerning the recent decision to allow Stephen Coughlin’s contract with the Joint Staff to expire (“Coughlin sacked,” Inside the Ring, Jan. 4; “A Purple Heart in war of ideas?” Commentary, Jan. 8; “Foul play,” Op-Ed, Friday).

In my experience, Hesham Islam, a retired Navy commander, who patriotically served this country in uniform for more than 20 years and continues to serve now as a GS-15 government employee, has been done a disservice by these writers.

Yes, Mr. Islam is a Muslim, and yes he has a view of the religion that does not necessarily coincide with Mr. Coughlin’s, but those who suggest our Defense Department cannot hold different points of view do not understand how the system works.

The suggestion that the deputy secretary of defense, Gordon England, is somehow being duped in his efforts to reach out to the Islamic community is also unfair.

Mr. England is a true American patriot who left a lucrative career in industry to serve his country. He is more than capable of discerning who has the best interests of this country at heart, and that is why he has Mr. Islam as an assistant.

In fact, it appears that it is the difference of opinion between Mr. Coughlin and Mr. Islam that Mr. Gaffney, Mr. Gertz and Miss West appear to be upset with, and one would have to wonder if this folderol would have ensued if Mr. Islam had a different last name.

Mr. Gertz and Miss West may want to further investigate what the American taxpayers were paying for Mr. Coughlin’s product and who the good steward was that decided to terminate the bloated contract.

CAPT. GORDAN E. VAN HOOK

Navy

Alexandria

Questioning the questioners

In his Commentary column “Waterboarding and its discontents” (Friday), Paul Greenberg spoke of those higher-ups in Congress, the media, and in the CIA who maintain “Plausible Deniability” and oppose saving American lives by gaining information from al Qaeda through harsh tactics.

They are among those who can’t imagine deciding between being overcome by smoke and fire, or jumping 110 stories. I’m sure some of those who jumped from the World Trade Center on September 11 thought it might be a way to survive.

The Americans taking the hit for these information-gathering tactics are those who do the actual hands-on work. The guys at the bottom. There are no echelons like the upper echelons.

These higher-ups should be reminded that an al Qaeda member, after having a process of unpleasantness explained to him, and given a reasonable period of time to digest it, can limit to any degree he wants the discomfort he will experience. In fact, he can avoid it entirely.

As for the notion that the information gained is unreliable; that was disproven at least once when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, after just a few seconds, maybe less than a minute, ratted-out six or more terrorist suspects, putting the kibosh on plans to murder Americans and others around the world.

WILLIAM RICHARDSON

Virginia Beach

Asking and telling in the military

I am a retired military officer with more than 20 years of active duty service, both enlisted and as an officer.

It is true that the military has always had homosexuals in it, but the solution has been to discharge them when discovered. I agree with Cynthia W. Morse that the logistics of dealing with homosexuals in the military needs improvement (“Soldier on,” Letters, Saturday).

The “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” policy created by President Clinton prohibits the military from asking recruits or active-duty personnel their sexual orientation, except in special situations. Thus, the first logistical improvement is to drop the “Don’t Ask” and resume asking. There would still be homosexuals in the military; they would just have to go back to lying in order to join, as they did before Mr. Clinton.

The only other logical alternative is a new law that the military will no longer consider sexual orientation or gender in recruitment, shower and toilet facilities and sleeping quarters. All facilities and ships would be sexuality- and gender-neutral, since homosexual activists claim sexual orientation is irrelevant.

The second needed change involves a policy wherein the military keeps HIV-positive personnel until they are too ill to work. With modern medicine, they may stay in the military for decades but are barred from serving overseas or on ships. Thus, non-HIV-positive personnel have to serve more often overseas and in harm’s way. Any other condition that has this effect on readiness results in immediate discharge. Congress should consider legislation to allow HIV-positive personnel to serve anywhere or require that all HIV-positive personnel be discharged.

CMDR. WAYNE L. JOHNSON

Judge Advocate General Corps Navy (Retired)

Alexandria

Don’t blame America

I have heard variations on the “blame America” theme on the Iraq war before, but few quite as obtuse as Chuck Woolery’s in his letter “Haditha and the law of war” (Jan. 5).

According to Mr. Woolery, all death and destruction in Iraq is the fault of the United States in general and President Bush in particular. He conveniently overlooks the fact that innocent civilians in Iraq had been and were continuing to be routinely butchered by Saddam Hussein and terrorists he supported were killing innocents elsewhere in the region prior to our intervention.

Moreover, our soldiers go to great lengths to avoid injuring noncombatants, in stark contrast to our enemies, who deliberately murder them or use them as human shields. To imply otherwise is a vile insult.

Saddam indisputably had used gas weapons in his war with Iran and against his own people, killing tens of thousands. He had also actively sought nuclear and biological weapons for decades.

More recently, he wanted people to believe he had them, regardless of his immediate ability to deploy them. This was one of his tyrannical tools to cow his own people and intimidate his neighbors and was completely consistent with his past behavior.

It is therefore not surprising that before the war, every significant intelligence agency believed he had them and would use them again.

Mr. Woolery says the war was our fault because we overestimated Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities. But most outrageously he claims that even if we had been right, we still would be guilty of an “atrocity” if we had tried to do anything about it. So, what should we have done? Should we have waited until a rail car full of the chemical weapon VX exploded in Rockville?

The Bush administration may have oversold the imminent WMD threat issue as a casus belli, but it was far from the only reason for moving forward.

I believe history will show that, for all the difficulties and second-order problems generated, a free Iraq will be at once a beacon of hope for other oppressed people in the region (such as Syria and Iran) and a dagger in the heart of the Islamo-fascist movement.

COL. STEPHEN J. HATCH

Army (retired)

Centreville, Va.