"We don't need another Vietnam."

War and remembrance

Military magnetics: How soldiers are drawn deeper into the quagmire

Editor, The Times:

I fully support our troops in Iraq. I would support them even if they were sent to guard the North Pole while Santa is out delivering presents.

When you are a soldier, you go where you are sent and make the best of the situation ["Iraq: Four Years of War"; "Living with the war," Times series part 2, page one, March 18].

However, sometimes you can help people only so much through military means, and then it's time to turn to other options — diplomacy, incentives and common sense.

The one big problem with Iraq is that our troops have become a terrorist magnet. Four years ago it was different, but now the war actually encourages the enemy and helps in their recruiting efforts. They can point to our presence in Iraq and say, "Look ... the infidels are here. We must drive them out."

And so they come, and the death of American soldiers is the only thing on their mind.

I think few of these terrorists care about ideals such as freedom or peace. They come to kill, by whatever means, even if it results in their own destruction in the process.

If the Iraqi people choose to engage in a full-scale civil war, they will be the only losers. If this is their choice, if they cannot find a way to get along and live in peace, no amount of troops can force them to do it.

This is why the war must end, and why our boys need to come home.

As much as America represents the beacon of freedom, it is also true that America leads better by example, rather than by force of arms.

We learned a big lesson from Vietnam. We discovered there are better ways than fighting a prolonged war to change policy. Vietnam tore America apart. Even today, its effects resonate throughout the country and bring back memories.

We don't need another Vietnam. We just need common sense.

— Robert Blevins, Auburn

Fouler power

Despite the best efforts of the liberal media to promote the agenda of the far-left, only about a thousand people showed up to protest the fourth anniversary of the Iraq war, in, of all places, our own bastion of liberal extremism, Seattle ["Antiwar rallies draw about 1,000 people," Local News, March 19].

Despite the best efforts of so-called progressive activists and the political opportunists who cater to them to characterize the actions of our nation, and of our president as somehow compelled by sinister motives, most Americans understand and believe we are a good people.

Even as we are frustrated with how long the struggle is taking, and the toll that it is taking, most Americans know that our troops are serving their nation with courage and nobility, and that our leaders, including President Bush, are doing all they can to complete the task as it needs to be completed.

The anti-war activists have tried to draw parallels to the Vietnam conflict of a generation ago. This is actually a useful comparison because it teaches us through the lessons of history that pulling out before the job is done does nothing but invite disaster.

When Congress cut off funding and support for Vietnam, it set in motion a string of disastrous events; the collapse of the Saigon government, the genocidal mass killings by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the tragic mass exodus of the "boat people" from Vietnam as the communists imposed totalitarian control, and the loss of prestige and confidence in our own nation from our failure to meet our commitments.

I believe most Americans have an innate faculty to "do the right thing" even when it is painful and costly. If our global conflict with terrorists and extremists was not the "right thing," we'd have a lot more than a thousand people speaking out against it.

— Les Iwamasa, Seattle

The simmer of love

In the past four years, I've seen most supposed peace-loving war protestors display so much anger that their eyes bulge and veins pop out on their heads. With mean-spirited talk about peace, it seems a dose of calming tea is in order to soothe the hateful talk.

If the self-proclaimed peaceful prayer groups got together, put a lid on their hostility, tossed their nasty signs, knelt down asking in prayer that "God's will to be done," peace would be in our midst.

I don't know about other faiths, but mine has taught me that God is peace, truth and love and he — not Republicans, Democrats or Independents — is in control of this planet!

I hope the protesters spend time praying for peace with the troops who are now in harm's way. Nobody wants, ponders or prays for peace more than they do!

— Elaine Solberg, Shoreline

More displaced hostility

In "Where the conflict stands" ["Iraq: Four years of war," News, March 19], what I found most interesting was the bar graph on the spending of the war.

The first two years, spent in Afghanistan alone, a total of $33 billion was spent searching for Osama bin Laden. Remember him? The man who was responsible for Sept. 11?

President Bush said, "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our No. 1 priority and we will not rest until we find him." Bush was then later quoted as saying, "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

Apparently not, since we spent only $33 billion looking for him, and then switched our focus to attacking a nation that had nothing to do with Sept. 11, searching for weapons of mass destruction that were never found.

So far, according to the bar graph, we have spent $566 billion on the Iraq war. The arrogance of Bush and his administration astounds me.

We need to bring our soldiers home and spend more money on helping these soldiers recover, both physically and emotionally, from the traumas they sustained fighting Bush's senseless, illegal, immoral war.

— Barb White, Shoreline

Robbing Peter

To Pace, all the same

In February, we learned that the Army, in order to meet recruiting goals, is granting "moral waivers" to people with criminal records. These waivers are given to people convicted of crimes such as aggravated assault and robbery.

This month, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declared that perfectly law-abiding lesbians and gay men should be barred from military service because, in his view, their private conduct is immoral. To allow them to serve, he reasons, would be to condone their conduct ["Gen. Pace won't apologize for calling homosexuality immoral," News, March 13].

What sort of world does the general inhabit, where robbery is moral enough but love is not?

— Julie Shapiro, Associate Professor of Law, Seattle University School of Law