TUESDAY'S LETTERS: Pundits, Troop Levels, and a Plan for Iraq

By: E&P Staff In today's letters, readers react to the situation in Iraq, and to calls from some pundits to send more troops.

***

Why Editorial Writers Push for More Troops in Iraq

I traveled the country, presenting public talks about Iraq and the MidEast with Ray McGovern and other intelligence officers concerned with the recklessness of US policies. The answer to [Greg Mitchell's] question about the pundits pushing for more troops is another question. Why do these pundits ignore the Downing St. Memos and the judgment of our military and intelligence services that our troops fuel the insurgency, and the war is not winnable militarily?

The other answer is an assertion by Mr. Bush. We can't allow the terrorists to have access to MidEast oil. Simple, isn't it?

Alex Sabbeth

***

U.S. Options in Iraq

I am no editorial writer, but let me weigh in on the options in Iraq.

First, if Vietnam is a lesson, then the threat to the U.S. if we pull out is overblown. We heard the same naysayers prolong that war for 4 years (the Nixon first term), stating that "all the dominos will fall" and encroching communism will reach our borders shortly. I asked the same question then, and will ask the same question now: We are the worlds mightiest nation. How exactly are they going to threaten us? Are they (terroists) coming by tugboat, canoe, speedboat? We have no ability to stop them? Please. If we have learned anything about 9/11 it is that terror cells within the country are the threat, not a foreign power gone awry.

We must look at all problems from the view of "worst case scenario." Say the worse case is Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq takes over control of Iraq. This is about as highly unlikely as onion becoming the world's most requested ice cream flavor. Only 2% of dead insurgents are foreign "jihadists," so their numbers are small. Iraqis will not let them take over, but let's say they do (with vitually no support from the country's own populace). Isn't the Murtha plan to re-deploy to the nearby countries? I would do one better. I would re-deploy to the borders of Iraq. Assure the country that no foreign powers will cross their borders. Be out of the inflamatory way. Attract the Jihadists (who want to kill Americans) to the remote outposts, where it will be easy to eliminate them. Securing the borders allows us to manage the inflow and outflow of people and goods. There are actually very few places hospitable enough to cross or move goods. It is not as difficult as it sounds. Why we never did this when we first took over the country astounds me. We do have 'fly over capability' and could declare anything that moves within 20 miles of the border DOA. So, let's say Al Qaeda takes over. How easy would it be to destabilize or defeat such and outfit? These are people who could not produce an infrastructure like water, electric, and roads. Iraqis are too well armed to allow such a scenario. Almost zero chance Al Qeda takes over. If it does, we take them out.

The real challenge is to sit back and say to the Iraqis, "Okay, work out a political solution, while we guard your borders. When the country is stable, we leave." Will there be civil war? Maybe: there is a low level one going on now. Will there be an Islamist state? Maybe, but so is Saudi Arabia. By guarding the borders, we can also let people out who do not want to be so religiously oppressed, and give them safe passage to a receiving country. It comes down to whether there will be a partition arrangement, or us exporting our most important American value to a region of the world that really needs it: separation of Church and State. Unfortunately, the Bushies are incapable of promulgating the one value that has kept our nation afloat for 200 + years. Our next Democratic president will have to finish that job.

Lou Wentz
Boyertown, Pa.