Theories to explain going to war in Iraq

Tim Rutten’s commentary on the Bush-Rumsfeld war plan sounds right on (“Connecting the Dots of Rumsfeld’s Theories,” April 2).

The real driving force behind our war in Iraq is not the removal of a tyrant, the pursuit of oil, the fear of weapons of mass destruction or the spread of democracy. Rather, it is a first step in the desire of this administration to aggressively spread American influence and control throughout the world.

Recognizing the danger inherent in using power to establish control (Pax Americana would be no more peaceful than was Pax Romana) and the history of the decline and fall of empires overextending their reach, the most relevant antiwar cry may well be “Don’t let Bush become our Nero.”

Bill Hessell

Culver City

*

Thank you for this possible explanation of the rush to war and the current controversy over the “failed” or “changing war plan.”

I have been reading about this group of neocons (Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol) and how their policies are driving the foreign policy of this government. It is disgraceful that these un-elected people both inside and outside the government have such power. Can we rightfully designate them a “cabal”?

It pains me that a young great-nephew is shipping out to Iraq this week to fight for their power play and other innocent young men and women will die for their grandiosity and hubris.

Theresa H. McGowan

Santa Monica