The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Poetry in Motion

9.5.08 @ 12:01AM

(Page 5 of 7)

Please see Peggy Noonan's explanation for this gaffe. She apologized.
-- Nigel Assam

FRAGILE, TOO FRAGILE
Re: Joseph Lawler's Timetable Dangers:

I have to disagree with Joseph Lawler in his "Timetable Dangers." The insurgency in Iraq and al Qaeda always were poorly trained and poorly armed. They were tough to defeat only because they Iraqi population protected them out of fear. Using the U.S. Army to fight such a rag tag bunch is like driving a Lexus in the destruction derby. The Iraqi military could have defeated the insurgency any time they wanted to. They didn't want to because they would rather US soldiers die instead. The US should have left Iraq at least three years ago. If we don't set a timetable for total withdrawal of every soldier, we'll be in Iraq 60 years from now just as we are still in Korea half a century after the war ended.
-- Roger D. McKinney
Broken Arrow, Oklahoma

The basic thrust of Mr. Lawler's article is accurate: a strict timetable for the draw down of U.S. troops in Iraq would be a mistake. His short term reasoning is sound, but he presents no long term reasoning. This may be because it was considered superfluous to making his point. But, I have noticed a certain myopia among commentators when it comes to the long term reasons for Iraq to harbor a sizable U.S. military presence.

Though violence, both internally generated and the work of outside agents [terrorist groups and nations], has decreased Iraq is still not a stable entity. Externally, Iran benefits from an unstable Iraq. Both the sitting government and certain semi-autonomous military organs of that nation are still actively meddling in the internal affairs of Iraq. And it is not possible to defeat Iran's actions in Iraq through attrition, as we have done with al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Internally, though the friction between historically hostile population groups has been reduced, it still exists and will, in all likelihood, continue to exist long beyond our lifetimes. The Sunni's detest and fear the Shia, and vice-versa. The Kurds desperately desire to become a part of a larger Kurdistan. The Baaths long for a return to their former political power. And the only thing keeping these disparate groups from each others' throats and hold the country together is the presence of an impartial mediator, the U.S. military. If not for that presence, there would be a true religious civil war underway, with the Sunnis losing in the long run, and probably an occupation of the Kurdish north by Turkey to forestall the formation of a larger Kurdistan that would annex part of eastern Turkey. The possibility of Iraq becoming an Iranian client state, a la Syria, or worse is very high without a U.S. presence.

So what the current U.S. administration does, with regard to this matter, is extremely important. Long term stability in Iraq will only result after a long period of relative calm. In this regard, the U.S. is playing policeman. When criminals see a policeman on the street, or even believe that he may walk around the corner at anytime, they are reluctant to cause trouble on that street. This leads to a greater sense of security for the other inhabitants of that neighborhood. Their sense of freedom increases as the incidents of thuggery decrease and they become more outgoing, knowing that disagreements will not flair into violence with the local cop around. To insure this, the cop [the U.S. military] will have to be around for quite awhile.

I apologize for being so long winded. This only scratches the surface of the problems in Iraq and does not address the War on Terror, of which Iraq is only a campaign, in any significant measure. The thing to remember is that a premature departure of a significant U.S. force, from Iraq, will have made all of our sacrifices worthless. Patience is called for here.
-- Michael Tobias

DON'T SELL HER SHORT
Re: James P. Lucier's A Negotiator Without Preconditions:

This article says much more about relevant qualifications for the Presidency than Lucier indicated. The original oil deal was negotiated by Frank Murkowski, who had been a two-term Senator from Alaska before becoming governor. It is not clear that serving in the Senate (where just words, just speeches, can get you by) is the best preparation for the Presidency, and the flawed deal negotiated by Murkowski bears witness to the fact that "experience" in the Senate does not necessarily a chief executive make. Sarah Palin demanded and received a much better deal from BP, using the experience gained from her hands-on work both in local government, and probably more importantly, in the private sector as co-owner of a commercial fishing operation.

To summarize:

Frank Murkowski, former two-term Senator, negotiates lousy deal with BP for Alaska.

Sarah Palin, former 6-year small town mayor and 20-year entrepreneur, negotiates a terrific deal with BP for Alaska.

Barack Obama, former full-time Senator for less than a year, proclaimed by the dominant media and Democrats to be more qualified than Sarah Palin to be President.

With all due respect to the media elite and Democrat cheerleaders, it certainly appears that both Republican candidates are much better qualified to be a chief executive than is Barack Obama.
-- Bob Tarone
Rockville, Maryland

Liked the Lucier piece on Palin.
-- Joseph Desoto

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Foreign Policy, John McCain, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Sarah Palin, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Mainstream Media, Television, Business, Abortion, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, Israel, NATO, Alaska, Oil