In response to Christina Galoozis' column "Hush up generals" (IDS Wednesday): As a war veteran, I found the points you raised in your article were well-made. However, you might have missed one key element about the secretary of defense's influence; namely, that his policies have gotten people killed. These people are American citizens who volunteered to serve their nation by serving in the Armed Forces. His decisions got a lot of them killed. He fired General Eric Shinseki, who suggested we would need several hundred thousand troops on the ground. Because we could not maintain control of the country after we won the war, we are responsible for the disgruntled Iraqis who are joining the insurgency. These insurgents are planting bombs and ambushing our troops. At what point would you say "enough is enough?" For the sake of the troops, wouldn't you want someone to allow the generals to fight in the manner they saw fit because that is what they have trained their entire lives for?
Let me put it this way: If someone who had never written an essay were to somehow become head of your newspaper, how much credibility would you give him or her when he or she told you how to write your articles? Now imagine if, as a result of the manner that you wrote your articles, people got killed or injured? That will never happen in a news organization, but it happens all the time in the military.
I'm a Marine who spent a tour in the city of Ar Ramadi, Iraq, in the middle of Al Anbar Province. I have some idea of what I am talking about. I despise this current administration and its deeply flawed policies and arrogance.
But I have volunteered to go back again if my unit needs me. Mostly, it's because it sticks in my craw that kids who aren't old enough to buy beer are going back for their second combat tour. It's hard to stand idly by and watch them go knowing that your experience and maturity might make the difference between their return on the passenger seat in a plane or inside a coffin in the cargo hold.
One more thing: The generals did not write the Time magazine article for the president. They wrote it for the troops. Of course, they knew that it would probably not make a difference to the president. But believe me, it makes a huge difference to people in uniform. This is real troop support and means a whole lot more than some yellow magnetic ribbon stuck on an SUV.
Ray Ruelan
Staff sergeant,
United States Marine Corps Reserve
Rumsfeld's hubris not greatest part of generals' criticism
I just read Christina Galoozis' article comparing the retired generals' criticism of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to the criticism of her by (apparently) a student editor at your newspaper ("Hush up generals," IDS Wednesday). It's a fairly ridiculous analogy. The arrogance of Rumsfeld's management style isn't the issue. It's that his decision-making has been terrible and has yielded awful results. That he arrogantly defends his decisions certainly offends, but it's to the current situation those decisions have led that has caused this country such problems. It's a little difficult to understand how anyone could compare the criticism of a man whose decision-making has led to the deaths of tens of thousands (yes, Iraqi civilians count, too) and to hundreds of billions of dollars in debt, to what, a reprimand from the daily editor in freshman year? If Ms. Galoozis thinks she's gained perspective since she was 19, then I'm guessing she must be about 19 1/2 by now. I like Google News, but clearly its search logic isn't quite as effective at filtering drivel as one would like. Daniel JohnstonePortland, Ore.
Job as editor not even close to job as defense secretary
I found Christina Galoozis' column "Hush up generals" (IDS Wednesday) quite perplexing. She seems to equate retired generals calling for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with her experience working at the Indiana Daily Student at the age of 19. Christina, how many people died because of the mismanagement you believe occurred at your job? How many hundreds of billions of our tax dollars were wasted? How many billions stolen? How many innocents were tortured in the IDS's prisons? How did your boss's wrong-headed decisions affect our county's reputation around the world? Affect other nations' inclination to provide us with intelligence ("If the United States is no more humane than the terrorist ...")? You were in the employ of the IDS, but our leaders work for us, not the other way around. It is precisely because these very same leaders are again trying to push us into another war, in Iran, after mistakenly, or criminally, bringing us to a war in Iraq, and then not being able to win a war (against an enemy that is a faction of our force's size and uses weaponry 100 years behind ours) that we should stop and listen very, very carefully to the warnings these generals have to tell us. After all, these six were all there, not sitting behind desks in Washington, D.C. These generals were "hushed up" while they were serving. They had to, it's part of the military code not to speak out against their civilian leaders. But once they retire, their constitutional freedoms are restored. And they feel obligated to use them to warn America that there is something very, very wrong with our leaders. I thank them, as we all should. Even if we don't agree with them. They are still doing their duty, this time as American citizens. Kevin KroossCenterport, N.Y.
Double standard in school segregation patently racist
Melanie Sims' column "Separation Anxiety" (IDS Monday) was overtly racist. She stated that had a white man proposed segregation in schools, she would be extremely against it and declare the act racist. She has admitted that the only reason she thinks this plan to resegregate is a good idea is that the presenter of the law is black. Here we have a textbook example of racism. She judged not by the content of character or idea, but by the color of someone's skin. Martin Luther King Jr. would not be proud. Trevor AlexanderJunior
Going vegetarian subverts inhumane animal treatment
I was happy to read Luke Schuman's inspiring transition to veganism in Nina Mehta's Tuesday article "Vital Vitamins?" More and more Americans like Schuman are choosing vegetarian and vegan diets as they discover that modern-day, profit-driven animal agriculture does not reflect their standards for humane animal husbandry. Becoming vegan is a way to boycott the cruelties endured by the more than 10 billion farm animals killed in the United States for food each year, and as Mehta discovers, it can be a perfectly healthy diet. Find out more about modern, intensive farming methods on the Humane Society of the United States's Web site www.hsus.org. Jason KetolaVolunteer with Compassionate Action for Animals Minneapolis, Minn.
Purpose of church is to guide world toward justice
In his April 17 online-only column, "Cardinal Errors," Adam Sedia criticizes liberal clergy for voicing political messages from the pulpit. Specifically, he attacks the archbishop of Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger Mahony, who "called for the faithful of his archdiocese to fast as a sign of solidarity for illegal immigrants and pray for 'just' immigration reform (read: amnesty)." His justification is that "Nobody wants to go to a liberal church." My question for Mr. Sedia is this: What is the purpose of the Church if not to guide us toward a more just world? And how is it relevant unless it seeks out injustice and calls on its members to stand against it? Cardinal Mahoney's message is not about liberal and conservative -- the liberals and conservatives in Washington are equally gun shy about what is right on this issue. It is about seeing injustice happening right in his own neighborhood -- right in Los Angeles, the capital of south-of-the-border immigrants -- and calling his parishioners to arms. But if we want to put it in liberal-conservative terms, consider this: Since Franklin Roosevelt's presidency, liberalism has come to stand for social justice, while conservatism has come to stand for the opposite. It was John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson who stood for civil rights when men like George Wallace (a Democrat but a staunch conservative) and Strom Thurmond opposed it. When people say that they do not want to go to a liberal church, what they mean is that they are in favor of the continuation of oppression rather than change in favor of justice. And it is exactly at this time that the firm hand of a "liberal" clergyman is most necessary to show them the error of their ways. Jesus, after all, was nothing if not in favor of justice for the weak, the poor and the mistreated, and to live immitatio dei, we must all take that into account. Adam ZolkoverGraduate student
Columnist wrong to slam Duke lacrosse before the facts
To Andrew Shaffer, regarding the April 13 sports column "Something rotten in the state of Durham:" I am usually a very laid-back person, but after reading your slash and burn job on the Duke lacrosse team, I feel compelled to respond. I am the father of two college-age daughters and obviously take the subject of rape very seriously. However, as a parent, I am also aware of how devastating allegations, assumptions and innuendo can be to a young person's life. I should also let you know that I am a former Duke lacrosse player, and I am personally acquainted with some of the kids and their parents. First, you are making an extremely rash statement that the lacrosse players are "far from innocent". Don't forget that the real issue here is the alleged rape. I certainly don't condone behaving badly with underage drinking and a racial epithet; those issues should be dealt with, but even you would have to admit that such offenses pale in comparison to rape allegations. So, when you refer to "innocence," or lack thereof in your commentary, you are automatically inferring that the players are "guilty" of the rape allegations. Second, you and the rest of the national media keep referring to a "wall of silence." Let me ask you a question: If nothing happened, as the players have repeatedly stated, what are they supposed to tell the district attorney and the media besides "nothing happened?" If they believe nothing happened, there's nothing to tell! Is the absence of knowledge an affirmation that something is being covered up? Unfortunately, that gets twisted and portrayed as a "wall of silence." If the police were to come into your newspaper offices, round up every editor and journalist, state that a crime occurred while you were all there and they wanted you all to make statements, but you all looked at each other and didn't know what the heck they were talking about, what would your statement be? Obviously, the truth: nothing happened that you are aware of. Oh, not talking are we? I guess that would be a "wall of silence," too? Furthermore, if you are not already aware, some of the players did give statements to the police, but once again adamantly denied anything happened. What more can they possibly do? And you guys rip them to shreds for this!? Third, you keep mentioning the 46 players as all being "guilty" in some way, shape or form. Do you know that six of the players who gave DNA weren't even in Durham at the time of the alleged rape? They were in New York for job interviews, yet they are lumped in with everyone else. Do you know that some of the players who were there that night had only popped in and popped out of the house for brief periods of time, unaware of the goings on? But hey, let's just lump them all together! Fourth, you obviously have some beef with prep school kids in general, in your words, "I know the type" (I'm guessing either Delbarton School or Landon School). I am not a product of a prep school, but rather a basic middle-class community public school. Do you know how many of the players are also from basic middle-class public schools and have parents who are not "rich" and have blue collar-type jobs or are single parents? I doubt it, because then you wouldn't have smeared them all as being "entitled" and elitist and "privileged." You try to cover yourself by stating that some might be "guilty by association," but unfortunately, the damage your opinions have already done cannot easily be erased from a reader's mind. Lastly, you keep reiterating the line "something happened," but the inference is always that the players were the only party who did "something" wrong. What about the alleged victim? Without facts clearly in evidence (except for DNA that DOESN'T match!), is it not possible that she might have concocted this whole thing? For what reason might you ask? Well, I could think of one or two reasons, but I would not publicly go out on a limb without facts, as you do, and try to smear her reputation. It is simply not fair to her. Clearly, someone is lying and whoever it is, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, be it the players or the alleged victim. Andrew, I understand that this is your "job" -- to give opinion, to provoke thought, to entertain and to inform -- but in doing so, you might have helped to irretrievably stain the lives of some young men and their families without knowing the facts. If the Duke lacrosse players are indeed innocent of the rape allegations, shame on you. If they are indeed guilty, then shame on them and they should be dealt with harshly. Until the facts are revealed, however, opinions given, such as those by you, are potentially doing a great deal of damage to other young men and their families. When the facts are finally revealed, I implore you then to use your First Amendment rights to the fullest and assail the guilty party! Tom BrodskyDuke alumnus
