Re "Pentagon Orders Iraq Replacement Troops," Nov. 6: If all is going so well in Iraq, there should be no need to call up any reserve units to fill any gaps in the army of occupation. Should any troops be needed, they should be drawn from the Army units stationed in Germany, Japan and South Korea. It is unconscionable, also, that those nations that we are told we are protecting from the ravages of Saddam Hussein -- mainly the Gulf states -- should not be brought in to relieve American servicemen.
There is absolutely no reason to keep such large forces in Japan or Germany. By this time, South Korea should be able to defend itself from the North. Let's accept the president's optimism and bring a good number of the U.S. forces home from Iraq. If they have to be replaced, consider the above suggestions.
"Seeking an Angle in the Sunni Triangle" (Nov. 4), about the 4th Infantry Division's efforts to clear out Hussein loyalists in the Sunni Triangle, described an early-morning raid that netted two Baath Party members suspected of involvement in attacks on U.S. troops. According to the article, the officer in charge told the small crowd that gathered, "Be warned: If any of you stand in the way of the coalition, we will come and get you too." The crowd's "collective stare [was] as hostile as daggers."
I'm not surprised. Is this what our troops are being trained to say? Wouldn't it be much more productive to say: If any of you stand in the way of international efforts to help the Iraqi people rebuild their country and create a democratic society, we will come and get you too?
Does The Times have no limits in the degree to which it will forward the agenda of the Democratic Party in preference to any slight show of patriotism? I am referring to your Nov. 3 front-page article covering the shooting down of an American helicopter in Iraq. The deed was done not by terrorists, not by those who supported the evil and genocidal Hussein regime. No, the article states that the murders were accomplished by the Iraqi "resistance." You know, like the heroic resistance fighters in many European countries who opposed the occupation of Hitler's troops.
How about covering the news for a change? The vast majority of Iraqis want us there and are thankful that their sons and fathers are no longer thrown into wood chippers and that there will be no more creation of mass graves.
After his famous braggadocio "bring 'em on" rhetoric regarding Iraq's armed forces, President Bush now claims that "Iraq's a dangerous place" and "I can't put it more bluntly than that. I know it's a dangerous place. And I also know our strategy to rout them out
I would point out that Iraq is a dangerous place simply because the U.S. occupies it. If we had not invaded this country unilaterally (not counting Britain), based on "faulty intelligence," it would not be such a dangerous place for the U.S. Hopefully, with the help of the rest of the civilized world, we can get out of this mess with as few additional American casualties and taxpayers' dollars as possible.
Re "Democrats' Iraq Inquiry Plan Is Leaked," Nov. 5: The Democrats, and Sen. John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV (D-W. Va.), should not retreat from the contents of the memorandum about the investigation of prewar intelligence. They should turn up the heat on the administration's stonewalling of the investigation. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, but this time it's not about sex -- it's about a misguided war that has set the U.S. on a course of events from which we may not recover for years to come.