More Comments on the War: Leslie G.

I believe, too, that the Iraqis would probably like freedom. It would be really interesting to go there, to conduct interviews among the people to see what "they" really think. As it is a bit dangerous at present, I think I will forego the trip...I am reminded, though, that some years ago, an acquaintance of mine from high school who writes for the NYT, conducted a radio interview about the middle east. Listening to him speak about the various points of view, I felt that I was getting the real scoop on the people's minds instead of just impressions. Interestingly, my business partner (from Iraq, btw) came to work that day raving about this columnist she had heard interviewed. It was the same guy - named Stephen Kinzer. I got in touch with him and we had a short exchange. I would like to find out what he says now about what is really going on there....and what the people think. From what I gather, everyone is glad to be rid of Sadam, but, even though they don't have a single enemy now to contend with, people's lives are far worse now that no one is in control. I have a lot of skepticism about whether you can actually hand freedom and democracy to people if they can't (or couldn't) do it for themselves. You pointed out that the Saudis are a deeply divided nation and that it took this strong kingdom to subdue the threat of its enemies. It used to be a safe place, but not anymore. The iron grip of the King is no longer so strong.The Iraqi sects, too, are deeply divided from each other. While they may want democracy in theory, I am not at all sure they understand it or can trust each other enough to allow it.


Which brings me to our president's glowing praise of democracy. He is another person who, I think, doesn't understand the concept. It disturbs me greatly - doesn't it you?- that while George Bush and his coterie say "let freedom ring" in Iraq, they are trying fairly desperately, to paint those who speak against the war, or even those who question any aspect of it, as unpatriotic. Bush's strategy -like Sadam's in Iraq - seems also to be to divide our country and rule as he wishes. He can talk all he wants about democracy and freedom, but letting Karl Rove give speeches to the effect that all those who question this war are terrorist sympathizers, trying to force (and succeeding!) Newsweek to rescind its reporting on the treatment of the Koran (when, as you know, many other observers, including Amnesty International, have noted the truth of the Newsweek content) encourages people NOT to speak, NOT to tell the truth for fear of being branded as terrorists, and is in effect, an effort to get rid of democracy even in our own country. His administration's attitude towards democracy here bespeaks no great love of it.

You wrote: We have now been attacked once again in a fashion on a par with Pearl Harbor. A similiar response is in order.

Yes, definitely a similar response! But, how does it help to invade Iraq when our enemies are and were all over the world? How did invading Iraq do anything to get our enemy? It's as if (I think Howard Dean said this) the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and we marched resolutely into Mexico. We did a sane thing by going into Afghanistan, where the Taliban and Al Quaeda were in cahoots with each other, but then we just left it to fester again in order to go into a country that was no danger at all. There is so much circumstantial evidence that George Bush, the man born with the silver spoon in his mouth, wanted to get Saddam and that 9/11 gave him his opportunity. Regardless of his words, the Downing Street memos and his switching justifications for invading make it seem as if he is using the bodies of our citizens (soldiers) as cannon fodder. Our enemies are, as I write, re-organizing all over again, even in Afghanistan, and we don't have the troops there to stop them.

I agree that, now that Saddam is gone, there seem to be a lot of freedom haters fighting against us in Iraq. But what makes you think that, just because they are fighting us there, they won't fight us here, too? There are plenty of them to go around, plenty of them to blow up trains in Spain and attack the twin towers, and etc. Why do you think fighting them there is doing anything at all for our cause?

It seems to me that we have a worldwide menace that has discovered it can bring any people and any government to its knees by attacking civilians when they least expect it. We should have gotten together with the world governments and put as much money and energy and even blood if necessary into cooperating to stop terrorism wherever it festers.