Allies in fear

Will Western civilization rise to the history lesson?

Editor, The Times:

Since the whole world stood united with us for a brief time after 9/11 until the present administration destroyed that, I would like to extend my condolences to those who lost loved ones in the bombings in London ["London's fears come true," Times page one, July 8].

Though not as many lives were lost as we lost in 9/11, that does not make it any less devastating to those who lost loved ones.

It truly is a hard time to be an ally of America.

Both the British and American administrations of the past developed a horror story for us all in the Middle East and now it is backfiring on us both in horrible ways. I wonder why no one ever learns anything from history?

I just wanted my British friends both there and here to know that I care.

— Lucy Oaks, Redmond

Escalating tensions

Will the weapons of self-preservation be lost on ambivalent?

Like many Americans, I am horrified by the recent bombings in London. The killing of innocent civilians is one of the worst things humans can do to each other: well, almost. I say almost, because as bad as this attack was, I really fear the worse crimes that may follow. These crimes, committed by the British government, would be:

Using racial profiling to find the freedom fighters who set the bombs.

Denying any rights to the guilty freedom fighters, no matter what country they are from.

Not providing Qurans, prayer rugs and the proper ethnic meals to freedom fighters once they are caught.

Not keeping the guilty freedom fighters in anything but a country-club prison.

Using any method for questioning the freedom fighters other than some polite questions over tea.

Not apologizing for everything it has done wrong in its history to any conceivable ethnic group anywhere.

Not arresting George Bush for starting this whole conflict.

As a concerned and vigilant citizen of the world, I can only shudder at the real tragedy that may ensue. May our leaders have the courage to resist that terrible path.

— Craig Sawyer, Seattle

Undo the breach

Now that we have a horrible and, sadly, unsurprising bombing in London to add to the war on terror, I can't help but wonder if British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been telling his people the same lie we've been getting here justifying the war in Iraq: We need to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here at home.

Of course, if Blair has been telling the English people this, I suppose he'll have to find yet another reason for the ongoing Iraq disaster, a situation that, before we showed up, had nothing to do with the war on the terrorists who attacked this country on 9/11.

— Jeff Birkenstein, Lacey

Unconditional defenders

It is with deep pain and disgust that we learn of yet another attack on innocent people. Those who attack others in the name of religion, freedom or any other reason should know that they defile their cause by such actions and create enemies not only among the people they attack, but also among the good people they claim to represent.

If this attack was perpetrated by people in the name of Islam, then they should know there is nothing in God's message to man that condones such attacks. They have no friends amongst those of us who share their faith.

People of good will everywhere join American Muslims of Puget Sound in absolutely and unconditionally condemning the attacks in London, as well as any attacks on innocents and non-combatants everywhere.

— Jeff Siddiqui, American Muslims of Puget Sound, Lynnwood

Distant karma

Faulty timing advice

Damn. That was bad timing on your part. Just as The Times is arguing that we should release all the detainees at Guantánamo with a pension plan ["Shackled by Gitmo," editorial, July 7] and apologize for having the audacity to defend ourselves, the bastards strike the innocent in London.

Your five-part editorial series ["America in Iraq," July 3-7] demonstrates a stunning ignorance on the strategy of this war (both theirs and ours), so perhaps that explains why you feel leaving Iraq with our tails between our legs, to be consumed by massive civil war, makes good sense? Which thereby would create a far greater problem than we already have?

Granting civil rights to fanatics who would have no problem killing you and your children probably is not the wisest solution for this situation.

Thank God The Seattle Times is not in charge of U.S. foreign policy.

— Phil Caldwell, Edmonds

Connecting the wires

"The ticking clock" [part 1, editorial series, July 3] says there were no weapons of mass destruction, which is true and misleading. The Duelfer Report said that there were, in fact, weapons of mass destruction programs, and that while there were no weapons found, there was also no evidence found that they were destroyed.

Since nobody disputes that Saddam Hussein had them at one point, the question remains: What happened to them? You leave all this information out.

Continuing, you state that there were no prewar terrorist havens or links. That is patently false. There is undisputed proof that Iraq was providing money to various terrorists and terrorists organizations. There is also proof that several al-Qaida members had meetings with top-level Iraqi officials and that they gave them sanction in their country.

Finally, the "no connection to 9/11" argument: George Bush never said there was [a connection], nor did any major proponent of the war. What was said, and what the 9/11 commission confirmed, was that there was a link between Iraq and al-Qaida. If you don't understand why that is just as important, you don't understand anything about the war on terror.

— Cliff Smith, Lynnwood

The sorry aftermath

I don't understand. After listing a litany of wrongs related to the Iraq war, The Times concludes, "the U.S. can exit Iraq without apologies" ["Exit without apologies," editorial, July 7]. After the legacy of death, deceit and destruction this war has left, how can we do anything less than exit with apologies?

Only with apology and telling the truth is there the possibility of true healing and the long, slow work of reconciliation to begin.

Without apology, the one at fault doesn't have to change and the groundwork is laid for violation to happen once again. The same holds for individuals, empires and newspapers.

Although I know it is naive, I still hope and pray for the powers that be to come clean and apologize for what we have done and supported, so true healing and reconciliation may really begin.

— Peter Ilgenfritz, Seattle

Filling the hole

The Times' exit strategy is no strategy at all. To leave Iraq at this point would be a disaster for Iraq, the U.S. and the Mideast, and a victory for the insurgents, which would only encourage such terrorists who target civilians.

To follow your suggestion could well lead to a civil war in Iraq and allow Iraq to become a safe haven for terrorist camps. It is virtually the same exit strategy that many in this country thought best for Vietnam. It resulted in a blood bath, not only in South Vietnam, but Cambodia and Laos.

It was an irresponsible strategy then and today.

— Roger Young (Vietnam veteran), Seattle

Pardon one, encourage many

Time to make some more apologies to the terrorists? Time to bash our policies in Iraq? Time to bash our president some more about taking the fight to the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan? [see "Exit without apologies"].

No, it is time to get serious and realize that, unless we take the fight to the uncompromising enemy, we will become the proverbial lambs to slaughter. Resolve is what is called for now, not the navel-gazing and second-guessing that The Times seems to enjoy so much.

A sense of history is what is called for now, not the finger-pointing and blame game The Times revels in now.

Your irresponsible and pathetic support of the naysayers and partisan hacks on the extreme left have left me ashamed for this paper and the city I live in. It gives comfort and support to a barbaric enemy that will only be happy when all [citizens] of the free world are either dead or converted.

— Wayne Bouck, Seattle

We half-made the enemy

It seems a lot of people have bought, hook line and sinker, this notion that "if we aren't fighting the terrorists over in Iraq, we will have to fight them here at home."

Sure, there are foreign fighters in Iraq who have come in to do nothing but stir up trouble, but most of what is happening there isn't due to "terrorists," it is the Iraqis themselves who resent our presence there. We invaded their country, not the other way around.

Remember the trained Iraqi army that former Coalition Provisional Authority administrator L. Paul Bremer disbanded? What do you think happened to all thousands of them? Just went their merry way to a new life of "freedom"?

In Vietnam, they were called "guerrillas." In Iraq they are "terrorists."

Yes, there are people who wish us harm. But no matter how satisfying it may seem to some, believing that if we kill enough people in Iraq, we won't have as much to worry about here at home is naive and dangerous.

— Bruce Hunt, Kent

Topple brass

"The ticking clock" [editorial, July 3] makes what is to me as a former military planner an incredibly astounding statement: "The time has come to begin planning an exit from Iraq." You couldn't be more wrong.

Unless you are attacked, the time for planning the exit from a war is before you start it. From where I sit, this has been a seat-of-your-pants operation from the beginning.

With politicians offering so many conflicting excuses for starting it and both politicians and senior military officers making so many false assumptions about its conduct and outcome, there is little wonder we are still flailing around trying to figure out how to fight it two years after the "end of major combat operations."

What is truly distressing is that the people who got us into this morass are either still in power or were sent home with the Medal of Freedom — while more than 1,700 young Americans have come home in body bags, having done what many of their civilian leaders were unwilling to do 40 years ago — serving their country.

— William Moore (U.S. Navy commander, ret.), Port Orchard

Virtual impossibility

Separating the men from the toys

"Caught in the spiral of gaming" [Northwest Life, July 6], failed to convey the true scope of video-game dependency today.

I'm 20 years old, and when I look at my generation, particularly its men, I see wasted potential and an immature avoidance of reality.

My generation has millions of video-game experts, but no youth political movement worthy of the times, and a pathetic musical contribution to our culture.

It is not possible for one's video-game dependency to interfere with his love life if one never gained a significant other in the first place because of years of evenings spent with controller in hand.

How ironic that young men who waste their youth plugged in to this elaborate entertainment non-reality couldn't tell you what the Downing Street memo is, or what the chance is of the draft returning, because they are busy playing as a character who, parallel to them, is plugged in to the Matrix (in the case of bestseller, "Enter the Matrix").

I'm not asking for legislation or even for concerned parents to step in. I'm asking for the teenagers and young men of this generation to step up, unplug and join me in reality.

— Grant Valdes Huling, Seattle