Reader mail

Fighting Sioux writes:

Tom, I disagree with your letter to the President, dated May 11. Of course I
agree that a quick end to the war in Iraq is preferable for all but our enemy.
But your letter suggests that we face two enemies; the followers of a corrupted
form of Islam (battlefield enemies), and the anti-war crowd in America
(political enemies).

In your letter, the association of political disagreements among Americans with
the enemy in Iraq, I think, goes a bit too far. While there are plenty of nut
cases in America on the left (and right), the majority of Americans who
disagree with the war do so without malice, though undoubtedly they do fuel
resistance in Iraq. As you point out, the President must be more effective in
communicating the importance of American victory in Iraq - he must make a clear
argument in order to convince Americans that warfare is the correct policy.

For good or ill people around the world are now exposed to a variety of images
and opinions, many of which are manipulated by the anti-war crowd. Such images
can be very effective, and President Bush's efforts to use the media to counter
his political and battlefield opponents are well founded I. Dropping such
electronic leaflets is crucial, but as you point out, the President's apology
for crimes committed by individuals is a poor way of convincing Americans and
Iraqis to support his policy.

Americans will never be given due credit for feeding and providing medical care
for Iraqis, nor will we be recognized for building a modern infrastructure in
Iraq. And as we now know, our task will continue to be difficult given the
fact that some people in Iraq are willing to blow themselves to bits in the
name. of a perverse cause. Yet, I think that giving Iraqis food and shelter and
jobs will, in the long run, prove to be the seeds of an economically and
socially stable nation in the heart of the Middle East.

Thanks for the note. Yes, we, by which I mean supporters of the war, do face two enemies--the terrorists and the antiwar crowd. No, they are not equal. And no, of course they are not linked directly. You are correct, large portions of the antiwar crowd has come to their positions without malice, but there is a sizable portion that opposes the war because it was begun by the Republican administration of George Bush, and when that is the case, I'm not so sure I trust their judgment. In any case, you agree that they "fuel resistance in Iraq." Since they are helping to spur on our enemies, the antiwar crowds' intent is less important than the fact that the president has allowed them to dominate the discussion. That's all I said. I guess I'm a little unclear what your disagreement with me is.

You (maybe) seem to disagree with me about using more force in favor of "feeding and providing medical care" for the Iraqis. I am all for those things, once those who support, even tacitly, the radical fundamentalist Islam we are at war with are petrified by the United States ability to destroy them. As I understand it, the situation in Iraq, where the terrorists have isolated themselves into specific towns from which many civilians have fled, provides us the perfect opportunity to show our resolve to use all the terrible power we possess in order to win the war.