Max Boot wants to send troops to Iraq and use them, supported by air power, to stop the advance by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. ("Here's what the U.S. can do about Iraq," Op-Ed, June 18)
I'm sure that would work just fine. We would be in a stalemate with the Sunni Muslim ISIS fighters controlling the northwest, the Shiite Muslims controlling the south and the Kurds controlling the northeast — not too different from the situation in Iraq for most of our war there, and with no great pressure on Prime Minister Nouri Maliki to change to a more inclusive and democratic government.
So I ask Boot and the other war hawks, as President Obama would: And then what?
Martin Nachman, Apple Valley
After dismissing the three "most popularly debated Iraq options in Washington," Boot proposes that the U.S. put in place a "comprehensive counterinsurgency plan, with military and political lines of operation."
Isn't this exactly what we just recently extracted ourselves from after 10 years of failure, death, expense and endless war? Let the current situation continue to play out into the three de-facto states that already exist in Iraq.
Let the area players find their own truce.
Donald Croley, Hermosa Beach
Boot proposes that we do another "surge" in Iraq, but this time with fewer troops. But if the last surge was so successful, why is there a need to do one now? And how long before we will need to do yet another one?
Why is punditry the one field in which being wrong is the key to a successful career?
David Greene, San Pedro