The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 3 of 10)

Did Tecumseh Sherman wage war consistent with American values when he moved through the south? One wonders. As I see it, when resources, funding and security are scant, values can be a very tricky phrase. American values are unlikely to be incredibly different in this respect from British, French, Indian, Japanese... yes, even Iraqi values, and even in warfare. The difference is that America currently faces an undisciplined force that is still learning in many ways how to fight, and exists only to fight, and fight dirty. They have no reliable base of operations with not a tank nor aircraft to their name and neither the capacity to build or operate one if they could. Were America invaded and overcome -- whatever the stated reason of the occupier -- no doubt similar ruthless groups would appear determined to stop what was observed as the enemy. This would happen even if the invader were Christian and spoke English. Even more so if they were of different religion, language and ethnicity. And this would be the same anywhere, different mostly only in non-essential details.

Iraq, as anywhere, has its share of racists, its share of anti-western patriots, its share of bull-headed religious adherents. These will always be the people who will not be bothered to understand the nuanced argument, or care for it -- people who favor action for action's sake, more concerned with appearing to be manly than actually doing it. You can find this on the streets of Fallujah as readily as on the streets of Detroit. And in the corridors of power in Baghdad as easily as in Washington or Paris. The difference is that in Washington, these people understand there is little to gain and much to lose by violating the status quo of society.

p>In Iraq, when one considers the uncertainty and distrust inherent in the situation, naturally these same people -- malcontents and ignorant even in peacetime -- see the inverse. Iraq is similar now to France in the grip of the revolution, and as then, everyone is lost in the scramble to see who's going to make up the new power base. br> -- Brandon Butler /p>

Thanks for George Wittman's excellent article, "Losing Hearts and Minds." He is absolutely correct! Americans want to be loved, but before others can love us they have to have respect for us; no one can love someone they don't respect. In war, that means killing the enemy and winning military victories first. That is especially true in Arab societies in which people respect and admire strong, even ruthless, leaders while despising any sign of weakness. Signs of weakness include a willingness to negotiate and fear of harming civilians.

p>I can understand Americans shrinking from the brutality required to win wars. But I would ask the American people to please stop getting into wars if they don't intend to win them. br> -- Roger D. McKinney br> Broken Arrow, Oklahoma /p>

"Gaining the Iraqis' good will can come only after they have exhausted their societal bellicosity."

p>In other words, until they've killed enough of one another, for enough generations, and shed their spiritual and ethnic racisms and stopped their blood feuds -- and until true peace comes at whatever price, whenever it comes, to whoever's left for it to come to -- we're wasting our time in trying to win their hearts and minds? br> --

topics:
Harry Reid, Sports, Religion, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, NATO