Readers React: A world without a ‘war on terror’

To the editor: Reading Andrew Bacevich’s piece — in which he writes that military endeavors in the Mideast “have accomplished next to nothing” and that “the Greater Middle East trembles on the brink of disintegration” — was like a breath of fresh air. (“The ‘war on terror’ isn’t working,” Opinion, March 15)

If we had not invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, we would be in a much better place economically, diplomatically and morally. If we supported Palestinian statehood as vigorously as we do Israel, those countries would be more stable. Removing our troops from the Middle East would give Islamic State less incentive to terrorize us.

Let the major powers in the Middle East be responsible for the situation. Our role must be to receive more refugees, offer humanitarian aid and play a strong diplomatic role.

Maggie Fertschneider, Atascadero

..

To the editor: Bacevich lists several “conditions” that he believes cause Islamic terrorism: an outgrowth of chronic political dysfunction, economic underdevelopment, deep-seated sectarian divisions, the pernicious legacy of European colonialism and the “presence of Israel.”

Bacevich then writes, “For the ‘war on terror’ to succeed, it will have to remedy the conditions giving rise to the antipathy in the first place.”

I didn’t realize that the presence of Israel was a “condition” that could be remedied. Since Israel isn’t going anywhere, I guess Islamic terrorism will be around for a long time.

Jack Saltzberg, Sherman Oaks

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook