Wisdom from the Public on the Iraq Quagmire
Re “ In Baltics, Bush Blames Qaeda for Iraq Violence and Declines to Call Situation Civil War” (news article, Nov. 29):
President Bush blames Al Qaeda, dismisses the fact that Iraq is now in a civil war and won’t withdraw troops “until the mission is complete.”
Sounds to me like: blame others for the disaster his policies brought on, refuse to acknowledge the glaring truth that Iraq is in a vicious civil war and, lastly, stay the course!
Brant Thomas
New York, Nov. 29, 2006
•
To the Editor:
President Bush is reported to be dead set against direct talks with two of Iraq’s neighbors, Iran and Syria. Since the worst that could happen is that the talks would not work, why the reluctance?
It might have something to do with the fact that this administration has never really faced up to its less-than-ideal motivations for going to war and is always covering up its need to humiliate the enemy with highfalutin palaver about spreading freedom and democracy across the Middle East.
Is it any wonder that those whose foreign policies are supposedly as pure as the driven snow are loath to engage an enemy whose power status has been vastly enhanced by the projection of our own unacknowledged shadow side?
Joel Brence
Aspen, Colo., Nov. 29, 2006
•
To the Editor:
President Bush does not accept that Iraq is in chaos and needs an entirely new approach — one that includes our withdrawal.
Looking at Mr. Bush’s record of not dismissing subordinates even when it is obvious that they are not up to the job, it is clear that he will remain deaf to the facts about the crumbling situation in Iraq.
If Mr. Bush were now to listen to the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, or to the new Democratic Congressional majority, or to the American people, he would, in effect, accept blame for having been so misguided.
Instead, he will go on denying reality, while claiming he is flexible.
We should not expect him to listen to reason. It’s not in his nature.
Victor Kevorkian
Princeton, N.J., Nov. 29, 2006
•
To the Editor:
If American society were divided into warring factions and every day a thousand people were killed by one side or the other (the proportional equivalent to what is happening in Iraq), what would we call it?
If every day, on their way to school, our children had to step over the bodies of neighbors who had been tortured and beheaded, what would we call it?
If our morgues and funeral homes were overflowing with bodies, our emergency rooms backed up 24/7, our SWAT teams recruited into death squads and our Congress debating regional separation, I’d call it civil war.
But I’m not the president.
Mark Dowie
Point Reyes Station, Calif., Nov. 29, 2006
•
To the Editor:
Re “The Wars of Perception” (Op-Ed, Nov. 28):
The insinuation by Dominic Johnson and Dominic Tierney that negativity cost the United States victories in Vietnam and Somalia (not to mention Korea, where I served from 1952 to 1953), doesn’t take into consideration the fact that in war, the weaker opponent often wins by simply refusing to capitulate.
Here we are again with the same situation in Iraq.
When will we ever comprehend the Powell Doctrine — use overwhelming force and have an exit strategy?
Warner B. Huck
Hilton Head Island, S.C., Nov. 28, 2006
