U.S. Strikes Against Iraq

* Re “U.S. Launches Missile Attack on Iraq Targets,” Sept. 3:

If any other country were to attack our shores (say selected U.S. Forest Service targets, for clear-cutting the planet’s old growth), we’d call it an act of war and retaliate vigorously.

Our Constitution says only Congress can declare war, and yet President Clinton, on his own, bombs another country. How many innocents were killed?

And then, in your editorial on Sept. 4, you say Clinton is “on solid ground.” We are in trouble when the watchdog welcomes the thief.

LANNY COTLER

Woodland Hills

* Edward Luttwak (Commentary, Sept. 4) should applaud Clinton’s action, not find fault with it. Remember, it was President Bush who managed to foul up the opportunity to destroy Saddam Hussein’s front-line troops and left the morass of disputing Kurds in a protective zone that are finding allies within Iran and Iraq.

His political polemic that Americans would be happier with Bob Dole because he would be more persuasive is a joke. Bush had at his command 500,000 troops and a vast array of sea and air combatants; and with all that Hussein was not persuaded by threats to dislodge him from Kuwait.

Luttwak, clearly a Dole supporter, should find another line of work; it is clear he is wasting his time as a foreign policy savant.

GEORGE MAGIT

Northridge

* Help me get this straight: Clinton is attacking southern Iraq because Hussein has attacked Kurds in northern Iraq.

Everybody knows that two main Kurdish groups are at war with one another. One group is supplied by Iraq’s old enemy, Iran. The other group asked Hussein for help. And, for Hussein, it only made sense to put down the Iranian-backed Iraqi Kurds.

If Montana got guns from Canada and attacked Wyoming, wouldn’t Clinton send federal troops to break it up? Well, Hussein’s brutality notwithstanding, what’s the difference between those two scenarios?

DONALD S. BUSTANY

Los Angeles

* Someone needs to teach Hussein the words to that traditional American favorite, “Take Me Out to the Ballgame”: “For it’s one, two, three strikes you’re out .J.J. “

ALAN MATIS

Woodland Hills

* Re “Hussein Could Grow Bolder if U.S. Fails to Act,” news analysis, Sept. 2: Is the article telling us the president secretly believes that building the bridge to the 21st century requires reinforcement by another periodic therapeutic bombing of Baghdad?

Might this not be a bit embarrassing in the light of the disclosure just a few months ago that the pinpoint accurate “smart” bombs dropped on Iraq during the Gulf War turned out to have not such high IQs after all--resulting in considerable collateral damage (i.e., a lot of dead civilians)?

Information in “U.S. Readies Moves to Counter Iraqi Attacks on Kurds” (Sept. 2) about the current conflict between two rival Kurdish political factions in Iraq comes from the London-based Iraqi National Congress, “a U.S.-backed and CIA-funded coalition of Iraqi opposition groups.” Is a rogue CIA still dictating U.S. foreign policy? Is the real explanation for the current crisis that dirty little old secret spelled O-I-L?

SAUL HALPERT

Sherman Oaks

* It boggles my mind that so many Americans are enraged when our tax dollars are used to feed and house non-Americans, yet cheer when billions more of those same tax dollars are used to kill them.

BONNIE ROSE

Hawthorne

* Has anyone given thought to the cost of our attack on Iraq? There seems to be little consideration given to the tremendous costs involved in unilaterally launching those missile attacks and in the deployment of our sea and air assets.

Why should our country (read, taxpayers) have to solely bear the burdens of maintaining stability in today’s world? Where are our allies when it comes to sharing the costs of maintaining world order?

LOUIS BALOCCA

Glendale

* I’m glad that the Democratic convention could finally end so that the very next day the president could turn his attention to the atrocities which have been occurring in Iraq (“Clinton Prepares Troops for Action Amid Iraqi Moves,” Aug. 31). In this case, sending troops against Hussein is like dangling a porterhouse in front of a pit bull; we’ll hardly be surprised as things escalate in the next couple of weeks.

After all, bear-baiting may be a taboo topic in sporting magazines, but it sure is a great way to try and win political points, especially with an election just around the corner. Or am I just being cynical about the timing?

CALIX LEWIS RENEAU

Los Angeles