Vietnam Analogy Hits Home

Robert E. Hunter says of the apparently imminent U.S. war on Iraq (“Iraq Needn’t Be a Vietnam,” Commentary, Aug. 12): “We must summon knowledge and assume due humility. We must finally start widespread, sustained, open, serious and uncensored debate on Iraq, free of cant and emotion on all sides; we must be willing to accept permanent commitment to responsibility in the region--and do all this before the march to Baghdad.”

If a Gulf of Tonkin incident is again created or occurs by circumstance, which led to Lyndon B. Johnson’s quagmire with the U.S. war on Vietnam, there will be no time for considering any options. President Bush will act swiftly and attack, with or without the required congressional approval--as we are now accustomed to. Two U.S. wars on Iraq--one by the first President Bush and the other by President Clinton--have clearly led only to one thing: more war. Give peace a chance.

Alan Dakak

Yorba Linda

*

Former NATO Ambassador Hunter admonishes critics of ongoing U.S. plans for a war against Iraq by using Vietnam as an analogy. I consider this to be a singularly poor choice for comparison with yet another foreign policy adventure. He claims that we now have the necessary knowledge, which is the “linchpin” of success, to avoid the “quagmire” of failure due to “ignorance.” The only valid parallel to Vietnam that I see is that there is, as yet, no justification for a preemptive attack on this sovereign nation.

Norman F. Ness

Newark, Del.

*

“Iraqi Official Rejects Return of Inspectors” (Aug. 13) gives one pause. Before taking offensive military action against Iraq yet again, perhaps it is time for us to clean up our own backyard.

Purportedly, Israel has illegally possessed nuclear weapons since the mid-1960s and chemical and biological weapons since the 1970s. Rather than invading Iraq, should we not first send weapons inspectors to Israeli nuclear facilities such as Dimona? If Israel does indeed possess weapons of mass destruction, is it not time for its government to admit publicly to such a stockpile, and should not the U.S. subsequently encourage Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty?

Over the last decade, Argentina, Brazil and South Africa all went public with their nuclear weapons programs, willingly signed the NPT and then disarmed. Israel, India, Pakistan and Cuba remain the only nations in the world that have not yet signed the NPT.

Rather than generating more hostility and hatred toward the U.S. from the Muslim world by giving the appearance of applying a double standard, would it not be more prudent to prove first that our allies are in full compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty?

Charles D. Alvare

Los Angeles

*

A modest proposal intended to save lives, time and money:

If indeed the Bush administration’s goal is eliminating Saddam Hussein, may I suggest the tried-and-true method of placing a bounty on his head? Go all the way. Not a few million dollars, but make it $1 billion! I suspect there would be plenty of individuals or groups in Iraq ready, willing and able to do the deed and collect. It would save countless lives and be a bargain.

If nothing else, Hussein would be spending all his time wondering which aide, which guard, which of his generals, is itching for a billion-dollar payday.

Isaac Hirschbein

La Mesa

*

A nightmare, which Jack W. Germond addressed (“The Iraq Divide,” Opinion, Aug. 11): Good old boys, starving for male bonding, discussed Iraqi war techniques--talk warmed over from the fraternity house or treehouse club. More frightened of each other than of the end of the world, not one among them had the guts to shout:

Is talk of an act of unprovoked aggression by the U.S. even sane? Is it statesmanlike to not reflect deeply upon the recent Pax Christi statement of the world’s clergy? What are the views of our allies? Of the American people? What if our hubris had caused us to attack the former Soviet Union “because they had weapons of mass destruction”? Sellers of or investors in jet fuel, bullets or body bags, or reporters in search of a story, could never be our main source of information.... Considering centuries of hate will be our legacy, would it be in anyone’s best interest? Or (let’s hear it, all together, fellows) would it be incredibly stupid? Thank you, Mr. Germond.

Mary Gribble

San Marino

*

Since when has the U.S. government been given the authority to decide who should govern another nation? Since when have we been given the right to declare a preemptive war on any nation we decide is a danger to us? An ancient Greek proverb says, “He who the gods would destroy they first make blind with power.”

Doris Isolini Nelson

Los Angeles