Iraq: Administration’s Terrorist ‘Ground Zero’

Re “Iraq Now Considered Al Qaeda’s Top Battlefield,” Nov. 9: This summer, President Bush thundered: “Bring ‘em on.” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s recent memo wonders whether we aren’t creating more terrorists than we’re killing. Here, you cite a senior U.S. intelligence official as affirming that Iraq has now become the primary destination for Islamic fighters.

The administration argues that it is better to fight Islamic militants in Iraq than in the U.S. I wonder how the Iraqis feel about this aspect of their “liberation.” Perhaps they’ll show their appreciation by erecting a version of the Statue of Liberty in downtown Baghdad that proclaims: “Bring us your tired, huddled masses, your militant religious fanatics, your suicidal car bombers....”

Philip Geiger

Sherman Oaks

*

It’s amazing that a puny little band of terrorists like Al Qaeda has outmaneuvered the world’s largest superpower by drawing us into complete vulnerability in Iraq. We’ve thus made an irreversible commitment to remain there until “democracy” is in place and the oil fields have been “secured” by Halliburton, for what will surely be years of occupation. Meanwhile, we must endure the slow draining of blood, resources and morale each time a soldier is picked off or a pipeline blown up.

And don’t buy this administration’s line that this is where we wanted the terrorists to begin with. Have you noticed that the story changes every time they’re proved wrong? We’ve created the terrorism in Iraq. This is just badly conceived military strategy, as we remain highly vulnerable to homeland offensives on countless fronts.

Dain Olsen

Los Angeles

*

Re “Don’t Quit as We Did in Vietnam,” Opinion, Nov. 9: While I agree with David Gelernter that it would be disastrous and irresponsible to remove coalition forces from Iraq at this time, I am incredulous that anyone would claim that Bush’s mistakes “count zero.” The Iraq situation is a mess. Nearly 30 U.S. troops have died in the last week. The Red Cross has pulled out of Baghdad. There is a seemingly endless stream of accusations springing up over the Bush administration’s case for war. Sure, we have a mess to clean up, but was it really necessary to make such a mess in the first place?

Stephen Aiken

Irvine

*

Gelernter’s article should be mandatory reading for all junior high and high school students. For my daughter, and others, it will simply put more clearly what I have been trying to explain to her. For those with more pacifist (I’ll wait until the knife is at my throat) parents, it will help to educate them as to the big picture. Perhaps then, those children on the verge of adulthood will be helped to avoid the fate of Gelernter and others -- being haunted for a lifetime by our misinformed (under-informed, not-at-all-informed) opinions and subsequent actions.

Diane Gomez

Costa Mesa

*

Regarding artificial limbs: Faced with roadblocks to liberating Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, Bush seeks to convert the Mideast, have it become a bastion for democracy. He seeks to rescue Baghdad from “terrorists,” just as Lyndon Johnson responded to the Viet Cong by applying a simplistic, single dimension to the enemy (of choice). Absent Saddam Hussein, we will have placed ourselves at the very center, the nexus of a sectarian time bomb. At what cost? The Times’ illumination of the situation at Walter Reed Army Medical Center will be remembered (“Wounds of War,” Nov. 9).

John Crandell

Paradise, Calif.