Today's Letters: In Iraq, it may be time to choose sides

By LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Published August 12, 2007

Odd, yes, but Iraq is a war we might just win Aug. 5, Perspective story  

Sounds good - that is, until you get to the last two paragraphs where the authors bring in some reality. Not that their other comments on the positive effects of the "surge" in Iraq are necessarily wrong, but it is the central government and the split between Shiites and Sunnis as well as the independent Kurds that will make or break Iraq.

If we had an overwhelming force of many hundreds of thousands, it might just be possible to bring about some form of unity in Iraq. As it is, with our limited presence, we are doing well among the smaller Sunni population, while the larger Shiite majority remains uncooperative or even hostile, and the Kurds remain aloof from the struggle.

For what it's worth, Sen. Joe Biden's proposal of dividing the country into three sections representing the areas where most Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds live, with Baghdad remaining as a center of government, may be a step in the right direction. Meanwhile we should withdraw, which will require time.

Withdraw to where? The suggestion of friendly Kurdistan to the north, at least for a strong proportion of our troops, would allow us some oversight over the Sunni-Shiite situation in the south. Of course, we would have to make arrangements with Turkey, which has had a long struggle with Kurdish rebels.

In the end, however, it may come down to a decision to side with the larger overall Sunni faction of Islam against the Shiites, as Shiite Iran is our deadliest enemy in the Muslim world. Sunni terrorists like Osama bin Laden will remain a threat, but we can probably obtain other Sunni assistance in opposing him.

W.H. Riddell, Tampa

What a surprise

Well, gee. We've been told for some time that this old Earth is warming and now we've had the first sign that hell is starting to freeze over!

No other explanation is possible when the St. Petersburg Times runs a New York Times article written by Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack of the liberal Brookings Institution that is positive about the situation in Iraq.

What? Be still, my heart!

Sandra Tracey, Tarpon Springs

A custom of cruelty persists in Iraq culture Aug. 5, story by Susan Taylor Martin

Confronting societies that embrace cruelty

This article did not make one point perfectly clear. The point is that the violence inflicted on the people of these countries is perfectly acceptable as a way of life by its citizens. Maybe not all of the citizens but a vast majority of them accept it for what it is, a form of religious fanaticism that lets anyone take the law into their own hands when it comes to a matter of honor.

You don't disgrace your family or your community in these countries. If you do, you die. What kind of society is this that lets its citizens do these things?

We say we don't agree with the war, but we just sit back and let all these other things take place. Wake up, America, and start making sense about what you stand for. You want help in Darfur, but women are dying in other countries because of some religion we know little about. Where is the sense in that?

Joseph Kinnamont, St. Petersburg

A custom of cruelty persists in Iraq culture Aug. 5, story by Susan Taylor Martin

Abandon the old ways

I applaud the politically incorrect article by Susan Taylor Martin where she exposes the brutality found in Third World cultures.

All immigrants should repudiate and disdain the violent cultural pathology and misogyny and animal abuse of their countries of origin and vow to accept the moral and ethical values of our European enlightenment society. Without Western civilization, there is no civilization.

Joan Peters, Largo

Now see here, Obama Aug. 5, Philip Gailey column

Obama looks better

First let me say that I do not support Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton as my first choice for the Democratic presidential nomination. I support the campaign of Bill Richardson, because of the subject of this column: experience in foreign policy and diplomacy.

While I'm very disappointed in Clinton for getting swept up in President Bush's selling of the Iraq war, and making the "popular" vote at the time (as did John Edwards), my core criticism of Clinton is she didn't even read the intelligence reports on Iraq before casting her vote. To me, this is more reckless than Obama saying he would not punish bad leaders by not meeting with them as Bush has wrongly done.

Of course, an Obama State Department would do preliminary work before any visits, whether prior agreements can or cannot be reached. Personally, I think it would be refreshing to have a president who cares more about substantive meetings to solve the world's problems, rather than spin and the news cycle.

Obama's comments about taking out al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden (remember him?) in Pakistan if he had actionable intelligence shows the resolve that Bush lacked in Tora Bora. In short, I was very impressed with Obama's policy statement and comments on terrorism and foreign policy.

I find it difficult to be impressed with Hillary Clinton given her uninformed vote for the Iraq war. I have to believe she was just putting up her finger to see which way the political winds were blowing at the time. When it comes to decisions of war and peace, and the lives of our brave soldiers, I'd prefer a president with a different set of values.

Frank Lupo, St. Petersburg

America is taxing for all but the very rich Aug. 5, Robyn Blumner column

Helping wealth work

Are we to believe that President Bush simply loves the superrich and wants them to be ever richer? Is there any kind of meaning in tax breaks for the richest people in America?

They have the status and ability to affect industries directly; only they can afford to do so. A poor man may have a great idea, but with no money to market it, he winds up selling his idea to those who can take it to production.

I believe the aim of this country is to establish a comfortable and secure living for all, but we must not believe that the future is to bring the rich down and the poor up. I understand we must give the nation's most creative and financially astute the breathing room to do what they have been doing all along: creating jobs.

Kevin Butterfield, New Port Richey

Bottled water, daft drinkers Aug. 5, Perspective story

Capitalism's flaws

The article reprinted from the Economist raised real questions about the capitalistic economic system. What I remember from Adam Smith's 1776 book The Wealth of Nations, generally considered the founding document of capitalism, are two basic assumptions: 1. that if each individual pursues his/her own self-interests, the overall society will benefit, and, 2. that individuals make rational economic decisions.

If, as the article argues persuasively, the second of these assumptions is false (consumers paying for tap water in bottles at 1,000 times the cost of the tap water itself), then one might well wonder about the validity of the first assumption as well.

Maybe it is well to remember that just because communism has been shown to be a disastrous failure, it does not logically follow that capitalism will ultimately be a success.

Harry W. Ellis, Tampa

No room for tycoons Aug. 5, Paul Tash column

Here's to independence

I'm one who is very grateful to Nelson Poynter for leaving his newspaper to a school that has kept its independence. I lived in or near large cities before retiring to Florida 15 years ago. I've enjoyed the St. Petersburg Times as much or more than those big-city newspapers for the years I've lived here and hope to go on enjoying your wonderful paper for many more years to come.

Faye Hunter, Bradenton

Sensing animal sensitivity

After reading Daniel Engber's Aug. 5 piece, Death-sniffing cat's tale smells just a little fishy, I question whether he ever owned or raised a cat or dog. For those of us who have, we appreciate that extra sensitivity he questions.

Frances Renfroe, St. Pete Beach

[Last modified August 11, 2007, 21:50:37]