Ask the Right Questions About a Strike on Iraq

“Americans Wary of War but Willing to Let Bush Wage It” (Times Poll, Feb. 4) would have been much more revealing if you had asked respondents the price they would be willing to pay, or condone, if U.S. troops were to attack Iraqi forces. Would they be willing to pay $500 more a year in taxes so that there is regime change in Iraq?

Would they support the war if 1,000 U.S. soldiers were to die? If 10,000 Iraqi civilians were to die? If, as a result of our invasion, there were a terrorist attack in the U.S. that killed 500 civilians? Asking people’s opinions about war with Iraq should take into account the costs of such a war, many of which are unknown.

Richard Hertz

Santa Monica

*

Since your poll did not have my opinion on the possibility of war in Iraq, I will now give it: I am thoroughly unconvinced that the evidence thus far produced justifies an invasion of Iraq; it is my opinion that the U.S. should not act alone (without international support); war is not inevitable; and I would not support the Bush administration’s decision to wage war regardless.

Robert H. Fernandez

Granada Hills

*

Re “The True War Is With Phantoms,” Commentary, Feb. 2: So another dove writes a commentary condemning the war against Iraq, complaining that it could lead to more regional instability, more recruitment of motivated terrorists, etc. I seem to remember other naysayers just before we attacked Afghanistan; then it was over before you blinked and victory was ours. End result: more regional stability and many dead or captured terrorists (making the world safer).

I would argue that Saddam Hussein is a terrorist and that leaving him alone would be far worse than taking him out. Bush is right: Hussein would use whatever weapons he has against the West or sell them to terrorist groups. Let the doves go live with Hussein and then write about what they really see as a threat.

Douglas Crocket

Thousand Oaks