U.S. intervention is sending Iraq toward civil war
Published April 7, 2004
In our quest to destroy Saddam Hussein, the United States has also destroyed the only stabilizer the Iraqi people have known. As in all dictatorships, he enforced unity with the knowledge that fear plus hatred equals power. Is there any doubt that what will emerge following the transfer of power will inevitably be civil war?
Who was dreaming in Washington when they believed that out of the ashes of this second Iraqi war would come Sunnis living in harmony with Shiites and Kurds? We are about to witness a nation reduced once again to tribal warfare for which we are ultimately to blame.
-- John R. Hahn, Gulfport
The bungled war on terror
Re: Quagmire in Iraq, editorial, April 6
Analyzing scenarios and options as a prelude to Gulf War I in 1991, the first Bush administration concluded that a weakened Saddam Hussein would be better for us and Iraq than a coalition takeover of that country. Without Hussein, and with its many factions, Iraq likely would be ungovernable. Civil war or fighting factions would break out and the coalition would get bogged down in a country where basic tenets of democracy were unknown.
The best alternative, it was concluded, was to stop short of toppling Hussein, but to contain him, let him wither. Subsequent no-fly zones and international diplomatic efforts did indeed work, although several countries broke ranks and defiantly did business with the declawed dictator for their own benefit.
After 9/11, in a major policy switch, our government broke ranks with the international community as Americans were prepped for war in Iraq under the guise of Hussein's possessing weapons of mass destruction, or at least the capability to produce them. Our leaders said the oppressed Iraqi people would welcome us with open arms, not arms of war.
After $200-billion and more than 600 dead American fighting men and women, and counting, the dreaded difficulties of imposing democracy on an unappreciative country are proving Bush One right. The current President Bush's image as a strong, decisive leader immediately following 9/11 has been tarnished. Americans' pride and patriotism remain, but so do the evil minds that caused the blood and ashes of the World Trade Center. The imminent threat remains: Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida and his network of far-flung terrorists. Meanwhile, neglected postwar Afghanistan tenuously struggles for survival.
Sadly, President Bush and his Cold War staff blew it. In a shrinking world that precludes unilateralism, flawed policies and misdirected actions have alienated us from our needed allies and divided our country internally.
In November President Bush's record will be taken into account, including issues other than the must-win but bungled war on terror.
Americans are blessed to live in a country that gives us an opportunity to elect our leaders.
-- Arnold Fultz, Tampa
Sticking with strong leadership
The March 30 letter Owning up to mistakes does not quite put it together correctly. Great leaders do make mistakes and, when appropriate, own up to them. To only ask the question whether this administration, which was in office about eight months, did everything it could to prevent the 9/11 tragedy is not fair. The question should also be asked: What did the prior administration that was in office eight years do when all the terrorist acts were being formulated?
The voters will have a chance in November to decide whether this president made a mistake and if he is leading us in the right direction. The choice will be very clear.
We are not "diehard right wingers" who think this president can do no wrong. However, we are common, ordinary Americans who are aware of the strong leadership we now have. We are not about to take a chance on waffling and indecision when it comes to our country's security.
-- A.E. Joseph, Clearwater
Why privatize our military?
I see that there is a quiet privatizing of our military. There seems to be a squad of mercenaries guarding U.S. Iraq administrator L. Paul Bremer in Iraq. Why is it not our military?
These civilians are being paid $100,000-$200,000 a year! I wonder what profits these companies are making. What do our dedicated military personnel think about these security guards doing the same job and being paid maybe 10 times more? How much extra is it costing us? Who authorized this? Was it ever debated in Congress?
This administration seems to want to privatize every public service we have. When we take a service from the public (nonprofit) and contract it to corporations (for-profit) then they, in turn, donate to the re-election of the administration that contracted with them. Call, e-mail, write to your congressional representatives and ask them if they knew about this - or if they even care what we think.
-- John Culkin, St. Petersburg
So little respect for human life
What motivates an institution of public trust and information to stoop to such low levels of respect for human life? I refer, of course, to your picture on the front page of the mutilation of American bodies by barbarians. I don't believe that your front page editors are much above this gross level of moral decay if they do this for profit, partisan politics or as it seems to be all too common today "to just reach for the extreme to catch attention."
While I have long since differed with your editorial page content, I found it easy to just avoid that page completely. If I now have to avoid the front page, I may as well look elsewhere for a more humanistic approach to journalism. (That is what you are about, isn't it?)
The other day I had lunch with my cousins and their spouses and without exception, their comments turned to your picture. You had no fans at our little gathering, which was otherwise very enjoyable.
-- Bob Daetsch, Trinity
Shocking citizens into paying attention
I read with disappointment the April 3 letters condemning the "appalling," "horrific" and "despicable" photo from the April 1 Jubilant mob mauls 4 dead Americans article. It is appallingly obvious that what we as Americans need most is to be shocked and horrified (and informed) about the despicable events occurring on a daily basis inside the United States and abroad. It may come as a surprise to some that we as Americans are not particularly well-liked around the world. I congratulate the news media for trying (perhaps inadvertently) to shock our complacent citizenry into paying attention.
As far as the notion of pulling out of "a country that doesn't want us," that's pure idiocy. Whether we belong in Iraq in the first place notwithstanding, we are there, and we must support our brave troops and finish the job if any of us hopes to live without fear of terrorism, or travel, work or vacation outside the relative safety of our borders.
-- Dan Farrell, Clearwater
We must show a common front
Although I agree with many of your readers who found the April 1 front-page photograph highly offensive, I had to sit back and analyze my feelings before putting fingers to keyboard.
I certainly grieve for the families who have had to undergo not only the death of loved ones but the exposition of the manner of their deaths on your front page. I totally disagree with those who responded to the paper's decision to print the photograph by trying to place blame with President Bush.
The photograph, as horrible as it is, should bring home to Americans just why we are in Iraq and why we have to succeed there. When faced with similar situations in the past, we have set terrible precedents by our tendency to cut and run. The people who favor this type of response only invite more of the same. It is President Bush's first responsibility as commander in chief to protect America from what these animals would do to all of us if given the chance. Many of those who hate us in this part of the world will never like us or respect what we are trying to do for them. This is unfortunate but basically immaterial.
The security of the Western nations should never be dependent upon "making nice" with those whose hatred is so irrational. This is a case where the idea that "every opinion counts" is an absurdity, created by the irrationality of the hatred from the other side. These people reward homicide bombers with "martyrdom" and glorify their acts of mayhem as doing God's work. The American people may disagree politically over this war, but we must show a common front against those who would perpetrate these crimes against all of us.
-- Jay Johnson, St. Petersburg
Going against freedom and justice
The headlines of the mob killing and mutilation of American security guards in Iraq reinforces the stereotype of barbaric, Muslim terrorists, which serves to justify our illegal war and occupation of Iraq. I, for one, am fed up with the media's bias and distortion of the truth, especially in its coverage of the Middle East and Muslim countries. There are always two sides to every story, but the mainstream media only give one side.
The number of Iraqis killed by American bombs is at least 10 times the number of American soldiers killed. Why hasn't the media shown us the charred and mutilated bodies of those thousands of Iraqi men, women and children?
Why do the media refer to the Iraqis resisting our occupation as terrorists, insurgents, and pro-Saddam loyalists? The Iraqis have the right by international law to resist oppression and occupation, as did the patriots in the American Revolution and the Resistance against the Nazis. Muslims and Christians from Palestine also deserve the right to be free from Israeli oppression and occupation. Yet the atrocities committed by the occupiers are regarded as self-defense and the resistors are demonized as terrorists by the Western media.
Iraqis, Palestinians, Afghans, Chechens and Kashmiris simply want to be free to control their own governments and resources. We in the West have denied them these basic freedoms for nearly a century through colonization and the imposition of monarchs or dictators that served our economic interests in controlling their valuable resources. The war in Iraq is not about weapons of mass destruction or establishing freedom and democracy. It is about American control of Middle Eastern oil and our military and political domination of the region. The Israeli occupation of Palestine is destroying the lives, homes, lands, infrastructure, government and economy of Palestinians along with the hope for peace and a viable Palestinian state.
We Americans must stop our support for Iraqi occupation and Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories because it is illegal and inhumane. It violates our principles of freedom and justice and will lead to more violence against Americans.
Re: Don Addis' March 30 cartoon on Condoleezza Rice.
Interesting cartoon: Condoleezza Rice as Zorro.
Wasn't Zorro the good guy? Didn't he defend the rights of the common folk?
My vote is for Condoleezza as our first woman president. She has more sense than the entire Democratic Party put together.
-- Al Frick, Tampa
Share your opinions
Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by fax to 727 893-8675 or through our Web site at: http://www.sptimes.com/letters/
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.
