Troop withdrawal: What’s the right path?

Re “U.S. Commander Presents Drawdown Plan,” June 25

Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top American commander in Iraq, has drafted a plan to drastically reduce American combat brigades in Iraq from the current 14 down to five or six by December 2007. It sounds like the typical Democratic plan of “cut and run.” The general should be summarily fired for his losing attitude. Of course, if the plan is based on the Bush/Republican ideal of “standing down as Iraqi forces stand up,” then it’s a perfectly fine plan consistent with a U.S. victory in Iraq.

I guess it’s not the plan that counts, but the words in which it is wrapped. Semantics count for everything, and it’s obvious that the resolute Republicans are better at semantics than the weak, flip-flopping Democrats.

BRUCE BARNBAUM

Granite Falls, Wash.

*

Re “The Dems’ Iraq gap,” editorial, June 26

Instead of criticizing Democrats for proposing to change course in Iraq, The Times should ask why the administration and congressional Republicans don’t support a timetable to bring our troops home. Americans want U.S. troops out of Iraq, as do the Iraqis, including Iraq’s own prime minister.

And now we know that Casey, commander of coalition forces in Iraq, has proposed a timetable for sharply reducing troop levels there by the end of 2007. It’s no coincidence that Casey was the same general to point out that the perception of U.S. occupation of Iraq is fueling the insurgency.

Our massive, open-ended presence in Iraq is contributing to instability in that country, and monopolizing attention and resources that should be devoted to addressing serious threats to our national security around the world.

It’s time to get our security priorities straight. Redeploying our troops from Iraq will allow our country to refocus on our true national security mission in the wake of 9/11: fighting Al Qaeda and related global terrorist networks.

SEN. RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD

(D-Wis.)

*

The Republicans’ conundrum in Iraq: They won’t pull our troops out until they are convinced that the Iraqis can stand up for themselves. Unfortunately, they won’t know whether the Iraqis can really stand up for themselves until after they pull the troops out.

CHARLES FINCH

Huntington Beach

*

Re “War’s Iraqi Death Toll Tops 50,000,” June 25

Thank you for the article on the Iraqi death toll. For over three years, the media have been virtually silent about the primary victims of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. These casualties can’t be diminished as “collateral damage” because there are no valid targets in an illegal war. I hope you will follow up with stories about these victims and how their communities have been affected, much in the same way such stories are told regarding much smaller-scale tragedies involving U.S. citizens (e.g., Sept. 11, 2001).

JASON GUTHARTZ

Chicago

*

At least 50,000 violent Iraqi deaths in this unjust and unnecessary war. Are we safer yet?

ALAN CANTWELL

Hollywood