Letters

Putting More Troops on the Ground

After almost four years of fighting and more than 3,000 Americans killed in Iraq, President George W. Bush proposed an increase in troop strength to bolster the declining campaign. Readers debated the principle of persevering toward some kind of victory and whether more soldiers can make that happen

TIME asked, "Does Sending More Soldiers To Iraq Make Any Sense?" [Jan. 15]. First, President George W. Bush's opponents claim we don't have enough troops to do the job. Then when indications are that more will be sent, the same folks claim that won't work either. There's no place for such political cynicism, whether it is espoused by congressional Democrats or TIME magazine, when the lives of American troops are on the line.

JOHN JAEGER Irvine, Calif.

"What a Surge Really Means" depicted a growing consensus, even within the President's party, that the Iraq invasion has led to an endless quagmire of violence and destruction. This Administration's judgment cannot be trusted. From the beginning, the White House ignored experienced military leaders and drastically miscalculated the number of troops necessary to achieve our goals. Congress should study the President's proposal hard. Without a vastly superior plan, we are sending only more American targets.

MITCHELL J. FINE El Dorado Hills, Calif.

The key to winning in Iraq is to find ways to instill a unifying sense of nationalism in the country's ethnic, tribal and religious factions. Iraqis could build a first-class military to protect themselves from potential enemies and help defend freedom and liberty throughout the Middle East. They could rebuild their nation into an economic dynamo, just as Japan did after World War II. A united Iraq would have no fear of external threats and would be able to fend off Islamo-fascism from within and without. Baghdad was once the cradle of civilization, and it can rise from the ashes of war and tyranny to become great again.

SERAFIN QUINTANAR JR. Fresno, Calif.

If the U.S. could dismember Muqtada al-Sadr's Shi'ite militia, a positive domino effect would follow. President Bush should tell Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that unless he lets us crush al-Sadr's forces, we'll pull out. Iraq is the strangest war the U.S. has ever fought, in the sense that the Iraqis seem to hate one another more than they hate us.

ERIC HUGHES Olathe, Kans.

It appears that president Bush, the self-described "decider," has elected to ignore the well-respected, bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which recommended the drawdown of American troops from combat in Iraq. He is also ignoring 80% of the American people, who want him to bring the troops home. He has decided to do just the opposite, with a "surge" in troops, which is just spin for escalation. We tried that in the Vietnam War, which ended only when the American people finally woke up and demanded a halt. We must do the same now with this Iraq fiasco because it is very clear that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney will never bring it to an end on their own.

JOHN A. QUATRINI Hatboro, Pa.

Instead of asking whether it makes any sense to send more troops to Iraq, you should have asked whether it made sense to send troops in the first place. Even a complete idiot could see that the removal of Saddam Hussein would give rise to civil war and a bloody Shi'ite takeover. We have wasted more than $350 billion, lost another war, caused more than 50,000 civilian deaths in Iraq, reduced the country to anarchy and incurred the hatred of much of the world. And now we're proposing to continue on this insane course?

JOHN S. WHITMAN Peaks Island, Maine

Which Way Forward?

RE William Kristol's "There Is a Way Forward in Iraq" [Jan. 15]: Kristol is one among a thinning crowd of neocon true believers who still grope for some shred of justification for the worst foreign policy debacle in a generation. When he writes that the death of Saddam "might remind Americans of the fundamental justice of this war," he has convenient amnesia on a key fact. The Administration did not sell the Iraq war as a quest for justice; it sold it by telling lies about Iraq's WMD and al-Qaeda connections and imminent threats. When all those proved false, Bush and the neocons began manufacturing a series of substitute sales pitches to cover the smell of a policy that was rotten from the beginning. Kristol can keep on selling, but 3,000 U.S. lives and 46 months later, no one's buying.

TOM HITCHCOCK Tilghman, Md.

In Kristol's lofty arguments to support the "surge," he forgot to mention one thing: more troops means more deaths. He asked that we bet hundreds of billions of additional dollars and risk thousands more casualties on the faint hope that we will prevail, despite the conclusion of many Americans that the chances of success are almost nonexistent. Kristol may disagree about the odds, but the neocons have been wrong about everything in the past four years. Why should we believe them now?

SEAN DRISCOLL Spokane, Wash.

A Tyrant's Tawdry End

"Saddam's Second Life" [Jan. 15] described the brutal indignity of Saddam's hanging. As a Christian, I don't think that we have to combat barbarity with more savagery. The execution, as I see it, was an act more of revenge and hatred than of real justice. The U.S. can't repair the historical errors of the partitioning of Middle Eastern countries by choosing who should rule them now. We Westerners are not the moral cream of the crop, and our arrogant meddling will only bring more turmoil, particularly in this sensitive region.

ETIENNE RIBAGNAC Boynton Beach, Fla.

We would have done things "differently," said U.S. military spokesman Major General William B. Caldwell IV, referring to the appalling scene at Saddam's hanging. Whoever videoed the event has brought into our homes the ultimate reality of U.S. and British foreign policy in action, and it would have been no less brutal if done "differently." There is no dignity at the end of a rope at any time. Standing defiantly in the wreckage they have brought about, President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair--through their actions and inaction, words and silence--stand not apart from but shoulder to shoulder with barbarity.

ANDREW MCCREATH Aberdeen, Scotland

Environmental Entrepreneurs

"How Business Saw the Light" [Jan. 15] stated, "2006 was the year corporations began acting as if their existence--like the rest of the planet's--was tied to the environment," but failed to mention the obvious motivator, rising oil prices. The article complained that "the Federal Government dragged its feet on alternative energy" without recognizing that taxpayers should be grateful, since venture capitalists are pouring billions into green technologies. Free markets work. Low-priced oil increases greenhouse gases; high-priced oil leads to economically viable alternatives. We tilt at windmills when we ignore this simple economic fact.

HOWARD SIERER St. Julians, Malta

I am perplexed by why the U.S. continues to lag in energy innovation. Energy conservation seems so fundamental, and our energy dependence on foreign countries is considered a national security issue. Nevertheless, many Americans believe we have an endless supply of oil, gas and coal. Thankfully, businesses are starting to realize that energy efficiency and conservation are crucial to their survival in the marketplace. We must get past the political squabbling about protecting the environment; it happens to be the right thing to do, as we try to be good stewards of what God has given us.

RANDY RIDDELL Killen, Ala.

Funds to Fight Malaria

RE "The $10 Solution" [Jan. 15]: Jeffrey D. Sachs proposed that people in the high-income world pay $3 per year--which would amount to $3 billion total--to prevent malaria in Africa because "this is an amount that is too large for Africa but truly tiny for the rich world." But you and I have already paid this amount over a hundredfold through our tax money, which has been given as relief and aid to corrupt African leaders who have salted it away. Shouldn't our governments seize those stolen funds and then give them to the people who would benefit? How can our leaders sit by knowing all along that the donations are very often not reaching the targeted people? The public does not realize where so much of its taxes have gone, with no accountability whatsoever.

LEE W. ROM Johannesburg

HOW TO REACH US TIME LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Our e-mail address is letters@time.com

Please do not send attachments

Our fax number is 1-212-522-8949

Or you can send your letter to: TIME Magazine

Letters, Time & Life Building, Rockefeller

Center, New York, N.Y. 10020

Letters should include the writer's full name, address and home telephone and may be edited for purposes of clarity and space

CUSTOMER SERVICE AND CHANGE OF ADDRESS

For 24/7 service, please use our website:

www.time.com/customerservice You can also call 1-800-843-8463 or write to TIME at P.O. Box 30601, Tampa, Fla. 33630-0601

BACK ISSUES

Contact us at help.single@customersvc.com or call 1-800-274-6800

REPRINTS AND PERMISSIONS

Information is available at the website www.time.com/time/reprints

To request custom reprints, photocopy permission or content licensing, e-mail timereprints_us@timeinc.com or fax 1-212-522-1623

ADVERTISING

For advertising rates and our editorial calendar, visit timemediakit.com

SYNDICATION

For international licensing and syndication requests, e-mail syndication@timeinc.com or call 1-212-522-5868