Unfettered Letters

War hasn’t kept us safe

“Post hoc, ergo propter hoc,” means, “following this, therefore, because of this;” i.e., because one event follows another, the former must have caused the latter. Example: “My taking heavy doses of vitamin C is how I escaped colds this year.”

Many persons unknowingly invoke the above Latin phrase to explain ex-President Bush’s invasion of Iraq and his use of numerous questionable practices and policies as the reason for our avoiding another major attack. I am reminded of the rooster who thought his crowing caused the sun to rise until he overslept one morning.

Ford Thompson
Independence

Surge in Iraq wasn’t courageous

The ongoing revisionist attempts by President Bush and his administration are laughable. Most absurd of all is the attempt to color the surge as a courageous and bold decision. I would say, “Let’s be honest about this,” but with this group, why start now?

Whether you agree with the premise of or the need for this war or not (I don’t), the surge was not a courageous decision, and it was not a bold decision. It was really the only thing a cornered president could have done.

The choices were to stay the course (at that time a disaster, to say the least), to withdraw (never an option for this egomaniacal administration) or to “surge.” What’s bold? What’s courageous? It was the only choice a lame-duck, inept president in a disastrous time, in the last gasps of an incompetent presidency, could have done. Give me a break on the courage.

Stop the revisionism. Nothing they say will change the facts.

Jeffrey L. Roitman
Overland Park

‘Preventative’ war is a crime

During a recent televised interview, Vice President Dick Cheney opined that whether or not Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction posed an imminent threat to our national security was immaterial; it was the speculation that at some future time Saddam Hussein may have the capability of becoming a threat that was sufficient justification for going to war.

Legal scholars generally agree that a war based on speculation about what may or may not be a future threat is an aggressive, “preventative” war, a supreme crime in international law. Critics of “preventative” wars, including Dwight Eisenhower, have argued that accepting “preventative” wars would reduce the world to “the law of the jungle.”

Harold Oppenheim
Kansas City

Future of war on terror

In considering the article “President Cites Gains in 2 Wars” (12/15, A-1), I do not disagree that merits have been gained in both theaters. As a veteran of multiple tours in Iraq, I have seen firsthand the progress that has been made in providing stability and a new way of life to the Iraqi people.

However, I do have concerns regarding Afghanistan. Unlike Iraq, the culture and demographics are significantly different. The people are extremely provisional with more loyalty to their clan or ethnic group than to a government or country. A rapid “surge” of combat troops could be misconstrued by the rural population and stir up memories of the mistakes made by the Soviets in 1980s.

An optimal solution would be to provide additional military transition teams and advisers, using our soldier and civilian personnel, to the Afghanistan Army and government. This would continue our trend to best establish self-sufficiency by fostering their own independence.

Maj. Christoper R. Thompson
Student, Command and General Staff College
Fort Leavenworth

Special Forces are called for in Iraq

Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ comments about transitioning to Special Forces are right on target (12/4, A-9, “Pentagon moves to step up military’s ‘irregular warfare’”). But they’re a bit late. Greece (’40s), Vietnam (’60s) and Desert Storm (’90s) all utilized Special (as opposed to conventional) Forces effectively while minimizing casualties.

Tanks and infantry did not win these campaigns; Special Forces did. In Desert Storm we could probably have had tanks in Baghdad in less than 48 hours and taken out Saddam Hussein on Day 1. But perhaps some military leaders were worried about a lengthy occupation with a lot of guerrilla warfare, which is exactly were we are today.

A timely withdrawal of conventional forces does not equate to “defeat.” Just what constitutes “victory,” anyway? Iraq and Afghanistan are not conventional wars. Transitioning to a Special Forces strategy will allow us to better assist Iraq in rebuilding, self-governing and joining the 21st century world community.

Andy Miller
Grandview

War in Iraq bankrupts America

Tom McClanahan (11/23, Opinion, “Obama is being handed good options on Iraq”) echoes the claim of correspondent Michael Yon that “the war is over and we won.” We can always count on Mr. McClanahan to be the uber Bush apologist.

If only the American public had this information before Nov. 4, the outcome of the election may have been different. We should remember that we have previously been told by President Bush that victory was secure via his “mission accomplished” celebration 561/27 years ago.

McClanahan, like many conservative Republicans, remains oblivious to the reality shared in opinion by many Americans that this war was illegal, unnecessary, incompetently managed and has led to the bankruptcy of America financially and morally. In the eyes of most of the world it has greatly damaged our reputation and status as a great nation.

This war has been “won” by only a few: Halliburton, Blackwater, defense contractors and the other corporate cronies of the Bush administration. McClanahan’s claim is like saying that FDR had only to lose the golden opportunity to further a prosperous economy bequeathed to him by prior Republican free marketers as he took office in 1933.

J. Martin Kerr
Independence

Cost of war in Iraq is taking toll

Has anyone noticed lately how cleverly President Bush has pushed his cost of billions of dollars spent for the invasion of Iraq to the background? Now billions are being spent on the credit crisis.

The Republicans and far right have always blamed Bill Clinton for everything, even today. Now it is time for consumers to realize that the trillions of dollars Bush has stupidly spent in Iraq have come back to haunt him.

If Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke want to know where to get money for the bailout, it’s simple. Just tell Bush to bring back 140,000 service men from Iraq.

Herb Miller
Mission Hills

What will save us now?

I need some input from my fellow Americans. My understanding is that WWII got us out of the Great Depression. We’re in a recession now, and we’re also at war.

What’s going to save us now?

Joanne McBride
Prairie Village

Troops’ effect on employment

Let’s see if I understand this. Unemployment is at an all-time high, and corporations are laying off thousands. Yet our voters, in their wisdom, have selected and elected a president whose agenda includes bringing home the troops and reducing the size of the armed services. I’m not a mathematician, but won’t this just add several hundred thousand more people to the unemployment rolls?

Of course since we are aborting several thousand fetuses every year, we won’t have to be concerned with them growing up and adding to the unemployment lines — or paying taxes to help pay for those on the dole.

Wayne Miller
Lone Jack

Iraq and the election

No war would mean no surge

Another letter (10/29) comes to us pointing out how Barack Obama ought to admit his error in judgment over the surge. Why doesn’t John McCain have to admit his poor judgment over the war itself?

If we had followed Obama’s judgment on the war, the judgment about the surge would never have existed.

Trying to make the claim that McCain would be the better commander in chief because of his surge judgment is like trying to make a man who believes you open milk bottles when they are upside down in charge of opening milk bottles because he has the best judgment on how to clean up milk from the floor.

Jerry Skillicorn
Overland Park

Iraqi-American backs Obama

In the midst of the economic turmoil, the Iraq war is taking a back seat in this presidential campaign. Not so for Iraqi-Americans. Will Iraqi-Americans vote for the candidate who wants to end the war, or for the one who vows to continue fighting?

The Iraqi community is split.

At the beginning of the campaign, an Iraqi-American friend of mine was leaning toward John McCain. Now he is leaning toward Barack Obama. Why? He says Obama will be more accepted by the Iraqi people, and thus more likely to make breakthroughs. Second, he hopes Obama’s continued pressure on the Iraqi government to take responsibility for their own country will yield results.

I add that, of the two, Obama is the more thoughtful, more patient candidate. McCain is locked into the mindset that the military has the most potent answer to all international crises.

Rami Saffarini
Platte City