Letters to the editor

STAYING THE COURSE

Losing is not an option, deliberation is not president's strength

Editor, The Times:

As Iraq spirals out of control, President Bush tells the world that America must stay the course and make good its pledge to the Iraqi people. Very commendable, but George Bush has blundered badly. The Iraqi people now suffer and are turning to extremist leaders even more dangerous to our interests in the Middle East than Saddam Hussein ("12 Marines killed in ambush," Times, page one, April 7, and "U.S. hits mosque complex," page one, April 8).

Bush's leadership has led to a horrible disaster. He cannot accept different points of view, and he doesn't listen except to those who tell him what he wants to hear. He is like a gambler who will continue to play and lose because he must win; the stakes are billions of tax dollars and the lives of our young men and women who will be sacrificed because losing is not an option.

Just as during the Vietnam years, Americans will witness unspeakable acts of barbarism and heroism until we finally decide to end the insanity.
Stephen Chase Jr., Woodinville

Date with danger

President Bush is adamant about his June 30 deadline for transferring power to Iraq self-rule ("U.S. goes after the cleric who incited violence," page one, April 6). Good for him, staying the course is normally a good thing.

However, what will happen once the transfer is completed?

By all accounts, we will continue to have a very significant presence in the country for several years, but what will be our legal rights? If, for example, the new governing body no longer believes that our presence is in the best interests of Iraq, and requests that we leave, will we be obliged to leave? If there is a movement to split up the country into three parcels for the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites, and we don't agree, will we have veto power over that decision? If Shiites gain control of the governing authority, will they be allowed to rule the country?

Addressing theses questions prior to June 30 may be prudent. Perhaps what is needed is a well-orchestrated exit strategy that unequivocally relinquishes our administrative powers.

The sooner we can shed the appearance of being the "evil occupier," the better off we well be.
Charles Astleford, Monroe

Reversal of misfortune

It's great to see how well George W. Bush's war in Iraq is going. Since President Bush declared the "end of major combat operations," "only" 450 Americans and 6,000 Iraqis have died. It's great how the war hasn't caused any harm (like terrorist train bombings) to the United States' coalition allies, and strengthened her reputation abroad.

It's nice to see the reconstruction is being paid for by Iraq's oil reserves as planned. It's also a great thing that Iraq's people have welcomed coalition forces as liberators, as Bush promised. Moreover, I'm glad those weapons of mass destruction were found and the war's justification validated.

The positive effect Bush's war has had is amazing!

Just as June 30 is the date the Iraqis get their nation back; I pray Jan. 20, 2005, will be the day we get ours.
Andrew McManama-Smith, Seattle

The wrath of calm

I am sure that we will soon be seeing letters to the editor about how horrible the U.S. military operations against Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army are ("8 U.S. troops killed in Iraqi Shiite revolt," page one, April 5), but:

Life in Iraq has been improving steadily. These improving conditions did not suit al-Sadr's plan for consolidating power. He decided to incite violence against the coalition because it would not let him publish his inflammatory messages. He has endorsed the murder and mutilation of American contractors who were in Iraq to help deliver food to his impoverished countrymen.

He has said that he is opening a branch of Hamas, the murderous Palestinian terror organization that is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent Israeli women and children.

I am sure Operation Vigilant Resolve, designed to root this cancer out of Iraq, will be met with a new round of hand-wringing by the political left, but barbarians like al-Sadr cannot be allowed to hijack the advancement of democracy in Iraq. He chose this fight, and his misguided followers will feel the wrath of the most powerful military in the world.

The result will be a more stable Iraq for the vast, peaceful majority of Iraqis.
Steve Vautrain, Puyallup

Arguing in vain

With the increased violence in Iraq lately, the Bush administration war on terrorism is starting to remind me of the medieval practice of bloodletting. There was a day when physicians would intentionally bleed sick people in the mistaken belief that this would help them recover. If the patient got better, then they would conclude that the treatment was successful. If the patient got worse, then, obviously, the physician would need to draw more blood. Either way, drawing blood was the right prescription.

So it is with the war on terror. If we have a period of relative peace, then we should be thankful that we can reap the benefits of Bush's wise policy. If we have more terrorist attacks, then, obviously, the war on terror must continue.

Either way, bloodletting is the right prescription.
Joe Sullivan, Kirkland

HOMELAND INTELLIGENCE

Get smarter

How precious for Rev. Stephen Sundborg to congratulate us on our intelligence ("Homeland security a tough sell in Seattle," page one, April 7), and reveal his big issue: "how we are viewed outside the U.S."

With over 5,000 dead since 1986 from the attacks of Muslim extremists, I fervently hope that Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge takes as few chances as possible with the safety of my family and my community. One nuke or dirty bomb in a cargo container is all it will take to ruin our city.

Rev. Sundborg and the "very intelligent population of Puget Sound" can deal with their image after we're safe.
John Sweeney, Seattle

Dummies for English

I had no sooner uttered "How stupid can you be!" upon reading "British author detained 36 hours at B.C. airport" (News, April 3), about British author Ian McEwan's 36-hour detainment by U.S. Homeland Security officials, when I came across the statement that one of the officials had asked: "What kind of novels do you write: fiction or nonfiction?"

As a United States citizen, under the impression that my security is being watched over by people of intelligence (despite the lack of it higher up the food chain), I demand that this "official" be immediately discharged from his duties for having an IQ that is obviously less than the size of a gnat's little toe.

These wannabe cops and double-o agents are beyond too much. I suggest sending them back to preschool, immediately.

In addition, I suggest that if Homeland Security is so darned afraid that a British gentleman is being paid for his time here in the United States, perhaps the U.K. should send back all the actors, filmmakers, businessmen, sports figures, teachers, scientists and technicians who are making money over there to maintain their lifestyles over here.
Sable Jak, Seattle