Letters

The Ancient Roots of the Sunni-Shi'ite War

Our report sketched a timeline of the unending turmoil between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites, two sects quite similar at first glance but harboring a mutual hatred that has burned for centuries. Readers believed that with such a venomous history, Iraq will need more than the U.S.'s plan to return to stability

RE Your March 5 cover story: As a Sunni Muslim in the U.S., I am often asked to explain the differences and disagreements between the Islamic sects. Your superb analysis has made my job much easier. It is the most balanced, finely nuanced examination of the sectarian divide I have ever read in the mainstream media. Unlike many other non-Muslim commentators, Bobby Ghosh correctly realizes that the root of the fighting in Iraq (and in other parts of the Islamic world) is not religion but politics. The warring parties cloak themselves in religious garb and quote suras to suit their agendas, but at the end of the day their objective is not religious legitimacy but political supremacy. It is amazing how many Western writers miss that point--and all the more to Ghosh's credit that he grasps it.

AKBAR REHMAN Los Angeles

Your Iraq coverage has always been superb, and your cover story raises the bar even higher. I don't think I had fully grasped the social and political aspects of the rivalry between Sunnis and Shi'ites until I read your story. Now I can't escape the conclusion that the solution to Iraq's problems cannot be military. Shi'ites and Sunnis have to sort this one out themselves, and the most the U.S. can do is try to be an honest broker between them.

GEORGE JULIUS XAVIER New York City

Your historical perspective on the differences between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites was quite enlightening. These groups have a great deal of historical baggage to unload if they are to find peace instead of an unending civil war. But you destroyed a perfectly clear historical perspective by claiming that "there could be no more bitter legacy of the Bush Administration's fateful decision to go to war in Iraq" than an intramural death match between the two groups. This conflict has been going on for centuries. To blame it on the Bush Administration instead of those responsible--the self-righteous mullahs and alleged holy men such as Muqtada al-Sadr--is to allow political bias to creep into your reporting.

DALE R. ENCK Buena Vista, Colo.

The sectarian wars between Sunnis and Shi'ites would be comparable to a civil war in the U.S. between Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics. If Iraqis cannot tolerate slight differences in practice of the same religion, how can they embrace democracy? One of the foundations of our democracy is the acceptance of different ideologies, including religion. It's time for Sunnis and Shi'ites to get over their mutual 1,300-year-old grudge. If Americans can accept a multitude of religious creeds among their compatriots, then surely Iraqis can accept differences in the same religion.

RONN OHL Raleigh, N.C.

Bring Home the Brave?

Thanks to Michael Kinsley for engaging the myth that to question the validity of the Iraq war is to betray the troops in the field [March 5]. Equating support for soldiers with military escalation is insidious. True support would be to remove them from harm's way. But I take exception to his affirmation that the cause--removing a dictator--was worthy. That's just as dishonest as saying we need to continue the war to support the troops. Is the civil war that we unleashed a noble cause? Or was the arrogant pretext of imposing Western values on an ancient civilization just camouflage for establishing military bases and expanding the American empire?

NELS HENRY Canton, Ill.

I was sorry to see Kinsley say President George W. Bush's motives for invading Iraq were "to liberate a country from a dictator, perhaps to find and destroy some dangerous weapons." He made no mention of securing an oil supply, establishing military bases in the Middle East and promoting neoconservative ideology. Those less altruistic motives are the elephant in the room that everyone refuses to acknowledge. The U.S. cannot withdraw troops from Iraq because they are protecting oil, military bases and neocons' egos.

JANET MAKER Los Angeles

We must support the coalition in Iraq. It doesn't matter how much of a mistake we think we made going in. We have to stick around and clean up the mess. If the coalition were to pull out now, it would leave behind a very unstable, weak nation at the mercy of its neighbors. Iran considers itself the new big dog in the yard and is fueling the civil war in Iraq. How long would it be before Iran moved in for the kill? If it were allowed to take over Iraq, Iran would be the most powerful nation in the region and would fearlessly confront the West. Iran is a big dog penned up in its yard. But if we withdraw troops from Iraq, Iran will become a monster that no yard can hold.

ADAM J. COONEY Coventry, England

As a Vietnam veteran, I agree with Kinsley. Bring our troops home, and stop wasting the sacred blood of soldiers and billions of dollars.

STEVE JAKATT Coatesville, Pa.

Front Runners Lacking Luster Joe Klein could not have been more wrong in stating "Most voters don't care if Hillary Clinton says 'I was wrong' about Iraq" [March 5]. After six years of Bush's refusal to admit having made a mistake, all voters, not just Democrats, understand that such a refusal is clear evidence of a lack of integrity. We the people will not elect another person who lacks the integrity to admit a mistake.

JULES P. KIRSCH New York City

If Clinton's remarks on her Iraq vote were politically driven, she would have admitted a mistake by now, as her failure to do so is killing her on the talk shows and in political columns. She is probably telling a simple truth: that given the same intelligence and circumstances, she would vote for war again. We can criticize her judgment or critique the Bush Administration for cooking the intelligence, but we are not served by the focus on whether she utters the word mistake.

JEANNE HEY Edinburgh, Ohio

John McCain has always been more popular among the news media and moderate Democrats than among Republican voters. McCain didn't lose his edge. He never had one.

DAVE ROBERTSON Louisville, Colo.

Lieberman's G.O.P. Tryst

"What Joe Wants" [March 5] Discussed Senator Joe Lieberman's cross-aisle flirtation and his seeming preference for John McCain in 2008--in the hope that McCain would select Joe as his vice-presidential running mate. Although a Lieberman crossover would turn control of the Senate back to the Republicans, a 2008 gain in the Senate by the Dems would force him out of the limelight he so assiduously craves. He might consider a crash course in chess before it's checkmate for his political influence.

FRED PLEMENOS Lexington, Mass.

Lieberman lost the democratic primary because his constituents know that he is a lightweight shifting his allegiance as the wind blows, trying to play both sides of every issue. He is the poster child for term limits in Congress. He is still there because he is working the system for himself, rather than for the American people. How do we get rid of him?

BOYCE ABBOTT Chicago

A Galactic Joyride

In your article on the thrust to develop space tourism [March 5], you didn't point out the enormous amount of energy required for a brief thrill ride to space. The sole significant justification for manned spaceflight is ... more spaceflight. Manned spaceflight for exploration's sake is one thing. Trying to justify it on economic grounds is another.

JOHN DAY Powell, Ohio

On one hand, Sir Richard Branson has pledged millions of dollars in the fight against global warming. On the other hand, his Virgin Galactic will send passengers on a joyride, first via jet, then via spacecraft, burning up an insane amount of carbon-based fuel and adding substantially to global warming. Is Branson's first effort supposed to cancel the other?

DANIEL LONG San Francisco

HOW TO REACH US

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