Readers React: Iraq’s future should be up to the Iraqis

To the editor: All the talk about what the United States should do in Iraq misses the only important point: We fought and bled there for years. We threw out a dictator, knocked down the jihadis and left the Iraqis with relative peace and all the training, material and money necessary to build a future, as well as the military force to defend it. (“To contain ISIS, think Iraq -- but also think Syria,” Op-Ed, June 23)

All they needed to do was form a government that their own people would be willing to defend. They failed to do that.

The problem today is not a lack of American support; it is a lack of willingness on the Iraqis’ part to risk their lives. They lack that will because their government is corrupt. Who wants to die for a corrupt politician?

We could go back and pacify the country — losing many lives in the process — but that would only postpone the bloodshed until after we leave. We missed our opportunity to help Iraq a long time ago when we failed to ensure that the Iraqi government we midwifed was honest, competent and fair to all.

Michael Snare, San Diego

..

To the editor: After reading Dennis Ross’ piece regarding the proper course of action in Iraq, I’ve come to the conclusion that there is no proper course of action.

Supporting one group only instigates the hatred of others. No matter which way we turn, more enemies loom on the horizon. Trying to temporarily ally ourselves with Iran is like cutting cards with the devil.

It’s time for the United States to let the chips fall where they may in Iraq and Syria. Sending more money to help those fighting the radical Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, and Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria would be a colossal waste.

The ISIS calculation is a simple one: It adds up to zero gains for the U.S. on all fronts.

Charles Reilly, Manhattan Beach

..

To the editor: It is confounding that political thinkers — in this case Ross, a former Middle East advisor to President Obama — continue to get it so wrong about Iraq and just about everything else in the region. Ross suggests the U.S. should “assume the responsibility of quarterbacking the entire assistance effort” for those fighting ISIS and the Assad regime. How absurd and costly.

There are three distinct factions in Iraq: Sunni, Shiite and Kurd. That they will ever settle their differences, or that their separate sponsors will stop struggling for control, is a complete fantasy.

Why not broker a deal that creates three states within Iraq, each with their own form of Islam and ethnic identity? No quarterback can lead a team where each player has his own game plan.

Linda Feldman, Playa del Rey

..

To the editor: ISIS achieving what it wants would be a threat to much of civilization.

Thus, it is noteworthy to observe that nowhere in Ross’ excellent article addressing what might be done to clean up the messes in Iraq and Syria is there a proposal for elections to achieve democratic governments in the two countries, as a means to have all the inhabitants believe they will achieve a better life.

At present, going to the ballot box in much, if not all, of the Middle East to achieve a humane political system is as successful as putting a cart in front of a horse for transportational purposes.

Marc Jacobson, Los Angeles