Prospects for civil war in Iraq

Re “Now he tells us,” March 8

The last paragraph says, “Utter failure -- characterized by a dismemberment of the nation into warring sectarian regions -- would be disastrous for U.S. interests.” Certainly one would not want to see three warring regions, but apart from Turkey’s reservations about an independent Kurdistan and another Shiite state with Sunni neighbors, what is so bad about Iraq being split? It does not have a long history of being a nation, as it was constructed in 1922.

Why don’t you do an article or an editorial telling readers why it is so important that Iraq continue to remain as one state? You may discover that it is not so critical, or you may enlighten me as to why it is.

WILLIAM YARBOROUGH

Alexandria, Va.

*

You cited an interview in which U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad stated that Saddam Hussein’s removal from power opened a “Pandora’s box” of sectarian violence. But the effects go far beyond that. In 2004, a Lancet study estimated that 100,000 Iraqis had died; now it is likely more than 200,000. Al Qaeda’s recruitment and fundraising have been boosted; Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorism.

Besides enduring roadside bombs, our soldiers are at greater risk after our torturing of Iraqi prisoners. They also suffer health effects from our depleted- uranium munitions and mental health disorders.

On the home front, war expenses are starving our economy, while our citizens have become further polarized. Iraq and its tentacles have become a deadly mess.

NEIL WOLLMAN

Senior Fellow, Peace Studies

Institute, Manchester College

North Manchester, Ind.

DANIEL JORDAN

Instructor, Ventura College

Ventura

*

The Times editorializes: “the United States had opened a ‘Pandora’s box’ when it removed Saddam Hussein from power, creating the potential for widespread sectarian violence to lead to a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites.”

Just where was The Times during Hussein’s reign of terror, when his forces murdered Shiites? Of course, The Times doesn’t call that a civil war. If it wasn’t, what was it? A legal extermination? Factually, a Pandora’s box was open during all of Hussein’s reign over the Iraqi people. Now that the tables have turned, so to speak, The Times would have two things of the same be something different.

The core question remains for The Times: Do the Iraqi people prefer Hussein’s reign of terror or a free democracy?

RICHARD M. HOLBROOK

Weatherford, Texas

*

It is interesting to read that Khalilzad now warns that the U.S. invasion of Iraq has opened a “Pandora’s box” of ethnic and sectarian tensions. Khalilzad was one of the neoconservative architects of the invasion.

In December 1997, he co-authored with former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz an article in the Weekly Standard, titled “Overthrow Him,” calling for Saddam Hussein’s removal by military force to “[liberate] Iraq from his tyranny.”

Does he now admit that they gave bad advice?

JAMES GANNON

Stony Point, N.Y.