Why the rhetoric?

Sir, - The facts presented in Mr. Sitaram Yechury's article (Oct. 13) are by and large accurate. But, why one might ask, would any company invest huge sums in a country where the government was not both willing and capable of protecting their investment, or where their project ``would be0 an easy target''? It is by no means only in the U.S. government interest to see a stable government in Afghanistan. Could it be that ending support for terrorists in this poor, desperate country is solely the interest of U.S. oil companies, and so much so that it ``defines'' U.S. military actions there?

Inflammatory rhetoric, such as ``will consume innocent lives in gruesome proportions'', contributes nothing to the needed rational debate. Mr. Yechury's concluding exhortation, ``to state that we are neither with the terrorists nor with the U.S.'', leaves me baffled. If what is meant is: ``We should stand united against terrorists and terrorism in all its manifest forms'', then say so; ``not being with'' is not the same as ``being wholeheartedly against''. Likewise, not agreeing with the U.S. actions in Afghanistan (or anywhere else in the world, including the U.S. itself) need not equate to ``being against America'', though that may be what was intended. All the false generalisation makes me sad, because I know how lucky I am to have been born in America, where I was given freedom and opportunity far beyond what most people ever experience - including the freedom to choose to live the rest of my life in India.

T. Adams,

Madurai

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : American hegemony
Next     : Wrong impression