Don't draw too many ties between 9/11 and WWII

Don't draw too many tiesbetween 9/11 and WWII
EDITOR:
In a recent letter to the editor, a writer tried with all his might to draw parallels between Iraq and World War II. He stated that both were a result of attacks on America and made a few other bizarre comparisons. All of this was an obvious and feeble attempt to justify the war in Iraq and absolve the Bush administration from criticism regarding the reasons used for taking us into this conflict.
The writer conveniently forgets to mention the numerous differences. First and foremost, the attack of 9/11 wasn't done by a specific country but by terrorists, most of whom were from Saudi Arabia, our friend, and not Iraq.
Secondly, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, was not an imminent threat, didn't try to acquire plutonium from Africa, and had no ties to Al-Qaida, all of which are contrary to the intelligence the Bush administration so vehemently claimed and used to send our troops into battle.
To compare the two wars not only does an injustice to those who fought and died in WWII, but it also continues the right- wing trend of using flawed logic to justify their agenda all in the name of democracy and bringing freedom, or at least the freedom to be exploited for our economic gain, to the rest of the world. The idea that the rest of the world wants our type of society is both pompous and inaccurate.
BILL JOHNSON
Boardman
United States did investigatebombing of Pearl Harbor
EDITOR:
Contrary to the June 2 letter stating that there was no "Dec. 7 Commission," my research has revealed information to the contrary. John Tolan's book & quot;Infamy & quot; is the best source. Following the Dec. 7 attack nine separate investigations took place over the next five years. They ranged from Secretary Knox's report early on, which put a great deal of responsibility on official Washington -- a report that was reversed by President Roosevelt. The Roberts Commission (Roberts was a sitting Supreme Court Justice asked by FDR to investigate) that blamed Kimmel and Short, which was soon reversed by the Army Board and a Navy Board which found Marshall and Starke guilty of dereliction of duty. But, Secretary of War Stimson reversed these proceedings in such a way that the Roberts Commission findings of Kimmel and Short being derelict of duty was upheld.
We also had a congressional investigation from late 1945 to 1946. Generally, this hearing was inconclusive due to the revision of testimony of witnesses a refusal by the government to release classified information.
As a military historian, my opinion is that there was culpability on the part of Kimmel and Short, but at least equal culpability on the part of official Washington including FDR, Marshall, Knox, Stimson, Starke, Hull and others. Ladislas Farago's scholarly book, & quot;The Broken Seal," provides a detailed look at what Washington knew through its intelligence efforts.
Once the attack took place with the public outcry on how could this happen, FDR and his senior advisers realized that someone would have to be held responsible. However, then embarking on a world war he also knew he could not allow his war team that he had hand-picked to be tarnished. The nation's confidence could not be broken, so Kimmel and Short were where the responsibility had to fall.
I am surprised there has not appeared in print or electronic media a comparison of Dec.7 and 9/11, especially from the perspective of our intelligence before these attacks took place. We had way more intelligence on Japanese activity than it so far appears we had about 9/11. Regarding the former, we could essentially come up with no more than a sure feeling the Japanese were going to attack someplace, with Pearl Harbor ruled out by FDR as the result of an exhaustive study done in early 1941. The conclusion was that distances were too great and that the U.S. would detect any such attack and repel it. Sounds like 9/11, doesn't it?
ROBERT B. MANGOLD
Colonel, U.S. Army Retired, Cortland