War’s Costs: If You Have to Ask How Much ...

I think it’s notable that discussion over the cost of the occupation of Iraq has evaporated into thin air along with President Bush’s credibility. Last we heard anything specific, the president’s “supplemental” funding request of $87 billion was overwhelmingly approved by Congress last year. Of course, that was above and beyond the initial $100-billion estimate. Who will have the courage in Washington to stand up and confront the president and Congress over the real cost of the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

Robert Corsini

Los Angeles

*

I’m writing responding to the broken promise of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the Bush administration to the soldiers, their families and the American people. We were “promised” no more than 12 months of “boots on the ground.” Well, Mr. Secretary, perhaps you should bring out your calculator because with the 120-day extension, I’m coming up with 16 months, not 12.

Now I, and thousands of military spouses like me, are handed the difficult task of explaining to our children that their mothers and fathers are not coming home as promised. I have, however, learned one important lesson. I cannot believe any future promises made by Rumsfeld or the administration, and I promise you this: My vote will reflect that lesson learned, come November.

Christina Wilson

Baumholder, Germany

*

The administration’s detractors are concurrently criticizing the administration for acting too swiftly to protect us from a threat from Saddam Hussein (a man linked to Al Qaeda, who was known to have biological weapons that he used against his own people and who declared a hatred for all things and people American) and for not acting swiftly enough to protect us from 9/11, for which the only warning was a somewhat vague memo and increased “chatter.”

This administration will never be able to do anything right in the eyes of these irrational detractors. Such inconsistent criticisms are more a sign of election-year politics than of concern for American citizens.

Steve Murphy

Simi Valley

*

I read “I’ll Take That -- and That,” your April 15 Column One on Iraq’s new consumer boom, with some consternation.

While it is wonderful that some Iraqis are experiencing material goods, I have to think about the fact that American taxpayers are paying the bill. More to the point, our children are going to pay those bills, because of the deficit budgets we are running thanks to huge tax cuts.

Even more irksome is that so much material wealth is being extracted from America’s treasury and our progeny, transferred to Iraq and then ends up back in the pockets of big Republican donors like Halliburton and Bechtel. It makes it very hard to cheer even for the few small successes in the mess that our administration has created.

Brandon Bittner

Spring City, Pa.

*

If one accepts Adam Shatz’s reasonable definition of terrorism -- “violence against civilians to achieve political aims” (Commentary, April 15) -- then it is we Americans -- with our indiscriminate killing of civilians in Fallouja and throughout Iraq in order to achieve neoconservative political aims -- who are the terrorists.

Tim Vivian

Bakersfield