Editor,
This letter is in response to
J. Torrey Baird Jr.'s letter in Tuesday's Daily Lobo. I found his tone insulting and his use of facts cloudy at best and deceptive at worst. Perhaps a few issues should be cleared.
Regarding the number of poorer recruits declining between 1999 and 2005, that's not entirely accurate. The Department of Defense does not track family income data for recruits, and there are no individual income data for enlistees. The areas from which enlistees come may have middle class median incomes, but that does not necessarily translate into the enlisted, having come from a family that makes the described income. In many cases, they come from families that make much less than the listed median. This is referred to as an ecological fallacy.
Baird implies we went to Iraq to free 50 million people from tyranny. He closes with a reference to Sept. 11, 2001, and being angry. Perhaps Baird is living in March 2003, when Bush informed Congress that acting against Iraq was consistent with "continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001." However, on Aug. 21, 2006, Bush admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with the events of 9/11.
Perhaps his reason for invasion was Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Bush stated that as a justification for war on Oct. 7, 2002. However, according to CBS and the April 22, 2006, Sydney Morning Herald, the White House knew prior to the invasion that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. The "end of Saddam's tyranny" was used as a justification only after the two previous justifications failed. If this alone is ample justification for war, then why aren't we in North Korea?
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
So, what is Baird's reason for war? Perhaps if he went to anger management, he might find clarity on this issue.
Baird states, "We understand that the war against terrorism is a resounding success." I am curious about his definition of "success." Perhaps it is the destruction of Iraqi infrastructures or innocent Iraqis being killed and maimed. Maybe it's the death of 3,200 Americans or the 30,000 wounded. Perhaps it's the depleted uranium that will continue to impact our troops and Iraqis for the next several generations, or the skyrocketing deficit.
Baird states that he supports the troops and Bush. Therefore, he must support the Bush administration's actions: cutting VA benefits and providing insufficient desert training and body armor for troops. That's supporting the hell out of them. Why is wanting to bring our people home alive and in one piece not considered supporting the troops? I submit that Baird makes a wonderful Republican parrot and deserves a cracker for the ability to repeat the same old, tired lines without thought.
Randall Starling
UNM staff
