A Year Later, Assessing Iraq and U.S. Safety

“A War’s Woeful Results” (editorial, March 20), about the unfinished business in Iraq and in the war on terrorism, is worth clipping and rereading in a year or two. Then it will be possible to see if your worst fears are realized or if you failed to grasp the wider picture. Meanwhile, everybody who had any access to intelligence was misled on the weapons-of-mass-destruction issue. My concern is the massive U.S. intelligence failure: How and why did it happen? Who was responsible for it?

While the war on terrorism continues, this much seems undeniable: The Iraqis are generally better off, and Iraq is no longer able to attack Kuwait, Iran, Saudi Arabia or Israel or to reward relatives of suicidal Palestinian terrorists. At the same time, the Saudi government is finally getting tougher on terrorists and on the religious schools that help spawn them, Libya has apparently given up its nuclear arms ambitions and there is talk in Syria about some democratic reforms there. But are Americans safer right now? You suggest that we are not. Who knows? Doesn’t that depend a lot on the quality and analysis of our intelligence? On that point, I am not sanguine.

Wayne Corey

Laguna Niguel

*

Your editorial was the best summary I’ve read of our predicament in Iraq. On Friday, President Bush summoned congressional leaders and ambassadors to the White House to ask for “unity.” Unity was not something he embraced a year ago when the U.S. invaded Iraq lacking the support of many of our key allies and without U.N. endorsement. Many of the coalition’s “willing” did not represent the majority opinion in the nations they came from. Others were simply bribed to join us. “Unity” apparently means “do what we tell you to do.”

Graham Smith

Glendale

*

Your editorial ignores the recent Iraq poll results that show the vast majority of Iraqi citizens believe Iraq is a better place to live than a year ago and are much more hopeful for the future. I’ll take their word over yours, thank you!

Jo Frkovich

Dana Point

*

Re “Poles ‘Misled’ on Iraq, President Says,” March 19: Is there some kind of contest within the Bush administration to see who can make the most outrageous public comments? If so, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz has undoubtedly taken the lead.

Responding to criticism from Poland’s president, Wolfowitz replied, “Nobody was misleading anybody.... When somebody tells you their best estimate of a situation and it turns out to be wrong ... that’s life.” Or in this case, death: over 570 American military personnel, and estimates of Iraqi civilians now exceeding 10,000. That’s a lot of life, Mr. Wolfowitz.

William H. Banks

Anaheim

*

Re “Evangelicals Flock Into Iraq on a Mission of Faith,” March 18: When we attacked Iraq, Muslims called it a holy war to replace Islam with Christianity. The U.S. said, “No, no, no.” It’s for your freedom, kids. And now that the door is open, The Times reports that hundreds of Christian warriors are landing in Iraq to show them the error of their religion and teach them Christianity. I quote the National Assn. of Evangelicals: “Iraq will become the center for spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ ... throughout the Middle East.” Hmm. Maybe these Iraqis are smarter than we give them credit for.

Jason Ross

Burbank

*

Pity the conquered. Not only do they have intruders usurping their space and ruling over them, they also have to suffer cultural imposition.

Marc A. Loera

Inglewood