Text Size:
A|
A|
A
Email
PrintWe must re-evaluate our goals in Afghanistan
The current debate over involvement (and expansion of troop numbers) in Afghanistan is crucial to our foreign policy and to our domestic economy. As a veteran of Vietnam, I see a great number of similarities to the Vietnam debate in the United States in 1964-65.
One of the items I learned in Vietnam is that a people's war isn't "winnable" if the lives of the people aren't improved in the effort. Gen. Stanley McChrystal and President Barack Obama seem to understand that, but they are hung up militarily in dealing with the Taliban element.
Afghanistan, with its corruption, bribery and poppy money, is really run as a government at the local, including tribal, level. The Afghan national politics is a show: The local politicians (and tribal chiefs) are really in charge. There are two historical parallels that I see to this fact : 1) the Nationalist Chinese in the 1920s and 1930s, and 2) in some ways, Vietnam.
A strategy to improve the lives of the people should be the goal, but we aren't even close to this aim. Instead, we are blowing up buildings and killing civilians in an effort to provide security to the people -- sounds like Vietnam all over again. And, we seem to be working with one tribal group (Karzai, et al.) to beat other tribal groups. I get a feeling in my gut that this will all end badly and will take up much effort, treasure and lives of both Afghans and Americans and international team members there.
We should look at cutting our losses in Afghanistan if we can't choose and support a strategy in which the people come out winners. If not, I fear we are being sucked into a vortex that will again poison our political system.
MARTIN J. RESICK
Emlenton
Be the difference
Recently, as reported on MSN's Web site, a 61-year-old man repeatedly slapped a crying toddler in a Walmart near Atlanta because the 2-year-old's crying was bothering him. Now the man, a stranger to the child, is facing charges of cruelty to children.
Parenting isn't easy; sometimes children can be a real challenge. It can be particularly difficult when parents and children are in a public place, the child is crying and others are staring. A baby screaming, a toddler misbehaving, a parent stressing out over something else altogether ... all of these things can affect how a parent responds to his or her child and how we, the general public, respond to them. We've all had bad days. That is why it is so important that we -- as bystanders and observers -- step in helpfully when we see a parent or child struggling. Not in judgment, anger or criticism (and not by slapping the child as the man near Atlanta did) ... but, rather, with a kind word, a helping hand, a sympathetic smile or a simple distraction. This may be all that it takes to make a parent's day or keep a child safe and happy.
Family Resources is launching a campaign called Be the Difference, to encourage all of us to get involved to support parents and children. To learn more about stepping in when parents and children are having a difficult time, visit www.onekindword.org.
WALTER HOWARD SMITH JR.
Executive Director
Family Resources
East Liberty
Three decades later
In response to Mark Purcell's letter ("Ross' Experience," Sept. 1) about the editorial "Black Gold: City Officials May Have Found a New Way to Pave" (Aug. 17): Being 1980, Mr. Purcell's experience had to be of the older, much-outdated heater scarifying equipment of the '70s and early '80s.
That particular process actually only scarified three-quarters of an inch to one inch and was meant to be used only as a base course with a one-inch overlay. Some felt that the roadway looked good enough to leave it as a drivable surface and not top it with the recommended one-inch of asphalt. I cannot speak for Ross Township other than to say that I have never dealt with the township personally, nor do I even remember this project.
I can tell you, heater scarifying is an old method that has not been used by our company since 1990. This is not only different equipment, but also an entirely different process from what we do today. Heater scarifying machines had an open-fired refractory brick method of heating, immediately followed by spring-loaded tines that were mechanically dragged through the hot material. Then, the pavement was sealed with Reclamite after compaction.
There was no asphalt plant, no center mill, no rotary blades, no grade and slope controls, no computers and no hydraulic drive systems on that equipment. You cannot compare equipment from 30 years ago with today's technology. We have always been an ever-evolving company, and that is why we have the systems on our equipment that we have today. It's called progress.
ALBERT BENEDETTI
Bedford, Ohio
The writer is the owner of Angelo Benedetti Inc., which manufactures and holds the patent on the recycling equipment used in the repaving process described in the Aug. 17 editorial.
Why politicize this?
I appreciate that Ruth Ann Dailey's job is to provide Post-Gazette readers with a more conservative point of view, but, honestly, not all topics lend themselves to the classic "liberal-conservative" tug of war of which she is so fond. In her column "The Big G-20 Redd-Up: Make It Last" (Sept. 7), she manages to take a discussion about the cleanliness of our region and turn it into a political playground squabble over who supposedly gives more, conservatives or liberals. I was ready to stop reading when she launched into her standard "us/them" rant, but managed to make it through to the end to see what her ultimate point was. And she does have one; it's just hard to find since it's mired in divisive rhetoric.
The issue here is the fact that a subset of our neighbors feel free to dispose of their trash in any way that's convenient for them, cleanliness of the region and respect for others be damned. It's unfortunate that organized efforts need to be made to "redd up" the messes left by others, but this is about pride in our region, not political gamesmanship.
Ms. Dailey, your message would have reached many more people had you managed to stick to the issue at hand, rather than trying to needlessly drive another wedge between people based on political affiliation.
NANCY WRIGHT
Brentwood
Separate mandates
Three years ago I wrote to the PG, replying to those who felt that the president needed to represent the will of the public. At that time, poll numbers ran against his policies. My position, then and now, is that the president is not elected to represent your views. That is the job of Congress.
The president was elected to lead the country. To lead by following the polls is as dangerous as ignoring the public opinion. If you want to demand that your voice be heard, contact your representative and senators. They have a mandate of listening to you and voting the will of their constituents.
I am a Republican. I disagree with the president on many of his current and proposed policies. I think his policies are harmful to the country, and I will oppose these policies to the limit of the law. But I won't whine that he isn't representing my will. That is the job of Congress. From its members, I will demand it.
PETER BALFE
Brookline
Over-the-top outrage
I'm outraged at what radical conservative "outrage" is doing in our country. Does outrage trump free speech? How can Van Jones be forced to resign because of a name he called Republicans and a petition he signed prior to assuming his position ("Adviser Van Jones Resigns, Decrying Smear Campaign," Sept. 7)? If there is no demonstrable harm and it's not against the law, why aren't people outraged over the erosion of our freedom of speech? Perhaps only conservative talk-show hosts can be outrageous.
CLAUDIA CARECCIA
Monroeville
Schools could offer nutritious food that kids would eat
I'm glad that, finally, "The Heat Is on to Improve School Nutrition Efforts" (Sept. 7). Having spent the last 20-plus years of my educational career watching what elementary children eat and what they throw away, I have a quick and easy solution to those efforts.
For years I have noticed children watching their teachers move past the long student lunch lines into cafeteria kitchens in search of soup, sandwiches and salads. I also have heard those same students complain, "Why can't we have that?" Well, why can't they?
Instead of glutinous chop suey or carbohydrate-filled stuffing and shiny gravy, why can't the cafeteria staff prepare vegetable soup and a sandwich? How about a salad with some meat and cheese and a fresh dinner roll? Or, serve my personal favorite, grilled cheese and tomato soup? Add an apple and a cookie and you have a lunch every student will eat -- not throw into the garbage can.
Now, if we could just get the cafeteria to stop selling "treats" that are high-profit but contain no nutritional value, we could raise attention levels in the afternoon and begin the fight to help our children maintain their appropriate weight.
BOBBI SULLIVAN
Oakmont
Can't wait to respond to our letter writers? Go to community.post-gazette.com/blogs.
We welcome your letters. Please include your name, address and phone number, and send to Letters to the Editor, 34 Blvd. of the Allies, Pittsburgh 15222. E-mail letters to letters@post-gazette.com or fax to 412-263-2014. Letters should be 250 words or less, original and exclusive to the Post-Gazette. All letters are subject to editing for length, clarity and accuracy and will be verified before being published.
