Wolfowitz’s Obsession With War

Finally, after the war, you publish “An Architect of War Draws Blueprint for Peace” (April 13), about neocon wizard Paul Wolfowitz, who conceived the war policy and sold it to the Bush administration. Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz’s peculiar talent is making the outlandish sound reasonable: He argues that Saddam Hussein gave us no choice but to base troops in Saudi Arabia, bomb Iraq’s “no fly” zones, starve Iraqi children and thus furnish the casus belli for Al Qaeda to attack the U.S.

As a result, he argues, we had to compound the grievances against us by invading the cradle of our civilization, Mesopotamia. In other words, it was Hussein the terrible who wagged us all. We were forced to do it.

Contrary to the neocon belief that any other policy is immoral, there were intelligent alternatives to preemptively attacking Iraq.

We invaded Iraq because President Bush prefers action to words and Wolfowitz provided him with a handy plan for military action. That it was against Iraq and not the terrorist network that attacked us served Bush’s purpose to shock and awe the Arab region with American power. Now our “footprint” is larger than ever on the Arab lands and Al Qaeda’s recruiting videos pack a lot more punch.

Howard Rosenfeld

Pacific Palisades

*

It seems obvious from the article that disarmament was never even an option of the Bush administration in Iraq, although it carried on a charade in front of the U.N. and the American people to that effect. Attributed to Wolfowitz are statements about “removing the Iraqi regime” and “toppling Saddam Hussein,” and quotes such as “removing this regime” and “was not redeemable by peaceful means,” yet not one reference to disarmament. It is stated that the plan to invade Iraq was hatched shortly after 9/11 and that “the only disagreement was whether to strike Afghanistan or Iraq first.”

It makes one wonder just which “evil nation” is next on their invasion list and what cock-and-bull reason they’ll come up with to justify it. Will Congress be asked to approve of such action, or is the “blank check” given to cover the Iraq war still good?

Bob Magruder

Carpinteria

*

Re “U.S. Insists Syria Alter Its Course,” April 14: A “course change” in Syria? Wow, this colonialist power doesn’t miss a beat! Do you think the fact that President Bashar Assad was not put in power by the CIA will make a difference in the “Syrian liberation” war?

Aramazd Stepanian

Glendale