Letters

Tyranny Tumbles

For Saddam Hussein, whose image has permeated Iraq, the most fitting end should be not only ignominy but also anonymity [COVER STORY, April 21]. Shouldn't we give Saddam the invisibility he deserves? The world should never again have to see a picture of this megalomaniac or hear a word about him. MELISSA A. BLAIR Tucson, Ariz.

It is no surprise that the most powerful military force in history has defeated Iraq. But what have we won? If this war was about making Iraqis safe, we have a long way to go. If it was about bringing democracy to Iraq, we haven't even begun. If it was about reducing the threat of terrorism, we've inflamed resentment in much of the Arab world. And if it was about bringing the world together to address terrorist threats to U.S. security, we've clearly failed. If the war was about removing Saddam from power--and nothing else--then yes, recent events signal victory. But it is too soon to claim success on any other ground. KAT HANKINSON New York City

The troops are heroes. Saddam has fallen. But one lingering question remains: Do you really feel any safer now that he is gone? The Muslim extremists who had everything to do with 9/11 are still on the loose. Osama bin Laden is free as a bird, and all the American p.r. in the world won't be able to stop al-Qaeda from future terrorist activities. RON LOWE Nevada City, Calif.

In adopting the doctrine of "I thought he might hit me, so I hit him first," the U.S. has sacrificed 60 years of diplomacy and the U.N. Charter. For this, we have become a global pariah. In exchange for thousands of lives and billions of dollars, we will indeed have a Pax Americana--and lose the world. ANDREW CHRISTIE North Hollywood, Calif.

Predictors of doom said Saddam would set oil wells on fire, causing an environmental disaster, and that his Republican Guard would cause our troops horrendous problems. Mostly wrong! They said Saddam would use chemical or biological weapons, killing tens of thousands. Wrong! They said Saddam would launch Scud missiles into Israel. Wrong! They said that even though most Iraqis might not like Saddam, they'd fiercely fight foreign infidel invaders. Well, look at all of those smiling, waving, cheering Iraqis. CAROL JARRARD Augusta, Ga.

If U.S. troops stay in Iraq, even for the shortest of postwar periods, Americans will be perceived by the world as empire builders, and our actions in Iraq may spawn a thousand Osama bin Ladens who will visit devastation upon our land. If we leave Iraq, it will splinter into a thousand mini-kingdoms of quarreling power grabbers who may ignite a larger war. We can't go, and we can't stay. BOB KETLER Bethlehem, Conn.

--Many readers reacted to our cover showing a red X crossing out Saddam, which echoed our 1945 X-ed-out cover image of Hitler, by asking, Why? "As horrifying as Saddam's regime was," commented a New Yorker, "this war was not the heroic struggle that was engaged in to defeat Hitler in World War II." A Tokyo reader agreed, saying, "To equate the fall of Saddam with that of Hitler is an insult to the millions slaughtered by the Nazis." But one Canadian put it in vivid sports terms: "Comparing Hussein with Hitler is like comparing a minor-league hockey player with the all-time great Wayne Gretzky."

Leading or Following?

In recalling the 1945 cover of Hitler with an X across his face, you said, "But like Hitler, Saddam became the target of a U.S.-led war" [TO OUR READERS, April 21]. I have the distinct memory that Britain was in the vanguard of the Second World War for several years before the U.S. entered the struggle. Perhaps this was a classic example of leading from behind? JOHN CARR Swansea, Wales

Baghdad Barbie

I did not know whether to laugh or cry at the photo of an Iraqi boy staring in wonder at the larger-than-life painting of a Barbie doll on a looted wardrobe door in Baghdad [IMAGES OF WAR, April 21]. I thought of 20th century artists who painted to shock (Dali) or promote an ironic view of American commercial icons (Warhol). None hit the mark of image and meaning that this photo does. CHARLIE RICHARDSON Atlanta

It's All in the Definition

The only weapons of mass destruction I need to validate the war in Iraq are the two hands of Saddam [COVER STORY, April 21]. Every day we see evidence of atrocities committed by this evil man and his henchmen, from torture chambers to tattered and starving children. The world will be a better place without Saddam, the personification of evil. MARY ELLEN LUKASIEWICZ Cumberland, R.I.

Saddam and his bloody enforcers were weapons of mass destruction. They were just as lethal as the missiles, gases, chemicals and other weapons that Hans Blix and his team of U.N. inspectors searched for. The weapons were a villainous leader and blindly loyal, amoral killers who targeted their own people. The damage and destruction to the Iraqis were massive in terms of lives, well-being, liberties, property and national resources. Saddam destroyed the hopes and aspirations of an entire generation of his people. JACK MODZELEWSKI London

Feelings of Unease

Many of us have serious doubts about the U.S. government and deplore its foreign policy [COVER STORY, April 21]. The invasion of Iraq was unnecessary. True, the dictator has gone, but the people have paid a terrible price. Few Iraqis feel "liberated." Can we be blamed for feeling uneasy about the future? It's hard to ignore the U.S.-wrought trail of wreckage and carnage extending from Nicaragua to El Salvador to Chile to Vietnam to Cambodia--and now to Iraq. GERALD W. HANKINS Canmore, Alta.

Liberation for Iraq, they say! What about the Saudi Arabian government? It tolerates no dissent, practices such barbaric punishment as mutilation and decapitation for criminals and has little regard for women's rights. Yet the U.S. has nothing to say about this! The main goal of U.S. foreign policy is to protect, preserve and enhance American economic and strategic interests worldwide. REYNARD HING Manila

The war has left Iraq in ruins. As anarchy, looting and terror set in, Americans weren't even able to protect the country's infrastructure. They did, however, find ways to ensure that the oil fields remained intact. The world can now see what the real agenda was. BOB PETRAS Terrace, B.C.

Saddam may have been a dictator, but Bush and Blair were ruthless in attacking Iraq against the world's will, killing innocent people through heavy bombing. SAIDA BANO Karachi

Rebuilding Iraq

In rebuilding Iraq, one must recall examples of postcommunist countries like Poland [COVER STORY, April 21]. The allies have to install democratic institutions and above all school the Iraqi people in how to function in a democracy. The allies should send teachers to Iraq to train this new society. The coalition will thereby be perceived not only as occupying troops but also as real liberators. It is important to include Israel among the states giving charitable aid to Iraq. Jews will have a chance to be seen as friends of Arabs and the Islamic world. MAREK WIEROSKI Andrychw, Poland

Food for Faith

Your article "A Faith-Based Initiative" noted that some Christian evangelical organizations are ready to go into Iraq to distribute aid along with a Christian message [COVER STORY, April 21]. Shame on Franklin Graham of Samaritan's Purse and the Southern Baptist Convention for supporting the troops in Iraq and then using their organizations' aid as a tool to convert Muslims. The Mennonite Central Committee, Church World Service and Catholic Relief Services have it right: Simply show compassion for all God's people by meeting their needs. Leave the rest to God, by whatever name. RICHARD H. ADAMS Hector, N.Y.

The postwar Iraq situation is already turning into a religious controversy among Islamic groups. Let us not be so naive as to let evangelists take advantage of the situation. The Crusaders did enough damage more than a thousand years ago. RICHARD J. PALMER Isla Verde, P.R.

Who Will Be Next?

Your columnist Michael Elliott asked what the Bush Administration should do now and suggested that Iran and Syria ought to feel nervous because of their terrorist connections [GLOBAL AGENDA, April 21]. I say that any country that has harbored a terrorist, plans terrorist attacks or helps others carry out such attacks against the U.S. is who's next. The U.S. is not at war with only a few people or even a few nations. We are at war with the entire concept of international terrorism. MICHAEL BUSSIO Scotts Valley, Calif.

For Elliott to compare the U.S. with other "empires" is literary license at its worst. The U.S. has never engaged in empire building like France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, China and Japan. Nor does the U.S. have a history of conquests like the Muslims, Turks, Persians and Greeks, to name a few. The one thing the U.S. can pride itself on is that it isn't interested in long-term rule of others. We are too absorbed in TV soap operas and professional sports to be bothered. ROY A. MURRAY JR. Manassas, Va.

Of Leverage and Leadership

In "The Power Of One," Michael Kinsley gave George W. Bush credit for Gulf War II and called him "the real thing: a leader" [ESSAY, April 21]. That statement could not be further from the truth. True leaders were men like Churchill, Lincoln and Kennedy, who inspired resolve, hope and optimism, not fear and paranoia. President Bush has a habit of inspiring the American people through fear. He has no place among the august ranks of real leaders. It pains me that our elected officials have the ability to manipulate the American populace through fear, the lowest common denominator. KEN RICHLIN Long Branch, N.J.

Kudos to President Bush for facing what many are afraid of. Bush is clever, cool and bold. I can always trust his judgment. Ride on, Bush--you are my hero. DANJUMA B. FORSON Lagos

It is far too early in this administration for Kinsley to dub Bush a leader. The fact that so many people willingly approve of this man's impulsive actions has more to do with credulity than leadership. The story of the Pied Piper of Hamelin says a lot more about the rats than the Piper. WILLIAM C. OLSON Lake Panasoffkee, Fla.

Kinsley's description of the "great man" theory of history and Bush as a real leader included the observation that "great in this context does not necessarily mean good or wise." Kinsley also noted that "if real leadership means leading people where they don't want to go," then Bush is a real leader. But by this definition, Saddam Hussein is also a great man. CHRISTINE GELINEAU Windsor, N.Y.

Tongue in Cheek

Re your item "Foie Gras In The Mess?," about attempts to have a subsidiary of a French company barred from supplying food to U.S. Marines [NOTEBOOK, April 21]: First it was freedom fries replacing French fries and the burning of French toast. Then fine French wines and Dom Perignon bubbled down patriotic American drains. One wonders what France bashers will dream up next to replace the French kiss. Let's hope for a tongue twister. KATHERINE E. KREUTER Rancho Mirage, Calif.