TO THE EDITOR: The newly begun war in Iraq has up to this point been billeted as what will be the most covered war ever in terms of media coverage and access to information. So far, it has lived up to this promise. Yet, I cannot help but question whether this is really a good thing?
While I am deeply interested in knowing exactly what is going on with the war, I am sure the Iraqi leadership and Saddam Hussein are just as interested. If every major news channel is broadcasting information about troop movements and upcoming aspects of the military strategy, they are broadcasting the information to Hussein, thus weakening any element of surprise.
While I want to be able to see what is going on, maybe it is better if I do not. Therefore, Hussein will be just as blind as myself when it comes to the war, and he will not have information that would allow him to prepare and execute an effective counterstrike.
Kevin Ellerbrock, Hamilton
---
Change in leadership needed - in D.C.
My only hope about the conflict with Iraq is that in 2004 people will once again fail to "vote" Bush into office. This wholly illegal and unjustified war will further destabilize the region and lead to more terrorism against the United States and Britain. Just as his father before, we see Bush with no clear domestic policy, no economic policy and just the outdated idea of winning a war to gain re-election.
I feel for the Iraqi people, knowing that Bush thinks he is saving them by destroying their country and their neighbors, and doing it all in the name of "liberation."
Here's hoping for a swift return home for all the troops and a swift regime change - in Washington.
Ian Fry, Northside
---
Now is time to focus on country
I have a difficult time accepting that in a time of inevitable conflict our congressmen would use the opportunity to try and undermine the administration's decision to use military force.
This is a decision put off 12 years ago, and yet all I seem to hear in the opposition is that we haven't given Iraq sufficient time to disarm and comply. Twelve years seems pretty sufficient to me. This is the beginning of peace in the Middle East for those who have never known freedom, yet are about to taste its sweetness.
Stop blowing wind about the administration, and please focus on the country during this our time of duty.
Andrew Pifer, Oxford
---
Military action will benefit Iraq, region
As a Middle Easterner, I fully support U.S. military action against Saddam because ultimately it will benefit the Iraqi people and the Muslims themselves by resulting in freedom and prosperity, besides removing from power the destructive dictator. Iraq has tremendous oil resources and with the right government and proper focus that whole region will boom. This is the bottom line.
One can easily see why France and the Islamic fundamentalists would want Saddam and his henchman to remain in power. France has obtained billions of dollars worth of oil-related contracts with Saddam's government, besides being his main weapons supplier. As far as the fundamentalists are concerned, free people and democracy and prosperity are bad news for them; they thrive in repression, tyranny, totalitarianism and corruption.
Kemal Khan, Springdale
---
Peace is the only ,solid resolution
The Ohio Valley Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, speaking on behalf Quakers in Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio is extremely saddened by our nation's attack on Iraq. We call on our nation's leaders to immediately stop this attack.
We implore our leaders to return to negotiations, inspections, and other nonviolent means of resolving conflicts. We love our country and honor it for its high aspirations toward freedom and equality for all. But, today we despair that our nation has fallen far short of its aspirations. We have attacked a country that has not attacked us. Today we are ashamed of the actions that are being taken in our names.
We extend our prayers to America's soldiers and the soldiers of our nation's allies, who are risking their lives. We pray for their safe return. We pray too for Iraqi soldiers and civilians. Our hearts go out in particular to the most vulnerable - the children and the elderly. May they be shielded from our bombs and bullets. We pray for our leaders and for the leaders of all the world's nations. May their hearts be softened. May we all learn that violence is not the way to peace. There is no way to peace; peace is the way.
Deborah Jordan, Price Hill
---
Sen. Tom Daschle is part of problem
Jonah Goldberg's column (March 20) pointed out another example of Sen. Daschle's words on important issues are for political interests, not America's. The article summarized the senator's remarks yesterday that he is "Saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we are forced to war." In 1998, he contradicted his remarks when defending Pres. Clinton's Iraq policy, "Look we have exhausted virtually all of our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqi's to comply ...and we don't have another option, we have to force them to comply and we are doing so militarily."
Differences of opinions are expected in a democracy and are a true benefit of our diverse society. However, political leaders don't have America's interest in mind when they say one thing when it is in their personal/party political interest and something totally different about the same situation when saying so is also in their personal/party political interest. If we can't believe the senator on his positions about Iraq, I cannot believe him when he tries to explain why he and fellow Democrats are holding up the vote on the Hispanic nominee for federal court, who has excellent qualifications and certainly has been deserving of a vote in the Senate for the nearly two years.
We need to count on our leaders to be truthful and direct, even though we may disagree with their position. Otherwise we don't know if they are looking out for America's interests or only their own. This seriously weakens democracy. Sen. Daschle is part of the problem, I would hope he would be part of the solution.
Craig Kinsman, Wyoming
---
Daschle courageous for criticizing Bush
Thank God for Tom Daschle. His recent open criticism of George W. Bush's botched diplomacy is a true act of courage, in a time when many Republicans equate patriotism with fundamentalist acceptance of the party line.
In the first Gulf War, the elder George Bush carefully assembled a broad coalition, and 90 percent of the bill was footed by our allies. In the current debacle, where almost all post-9/11 goodwill has been squandered, most nations are against us, one-third of the 45 supposedly for us do not want their identities publicized, and we are paying billions for neighboring countries to tolerate our presence.
This is not masterful diplomacy. Nonetheless, Tom DeLay, Dennis Hastert, Bill Frist, et al, decry the minority leader as being a French mouthpiece. On the contrary. Do these supposed patriots not speak well for Saddam's ruling Baath party, where criticism of the administration is met with vengeance? The right to dissent is fundamental to a vibrant democracy. Thus, support our troops to the fullest, as they dutifully enter the line of fire. Yet always reserve the right to openly, boldly question the decisions of those calling the shots.
John S. Hutton, Mount Adams
---
U.N. has done little to stop Saddam
The recent confrontation with Iraq has made one key point clear: If the United Nations had done its job right the first time, Iraq would not be a problem our country has to deal with in 2003.
When the U.N. inspectors were kicked out in the late 1990s, the U.N. did little, allowing Iraq to build harmful weapons with their capricious master ready to hit the launch button, ready to destroy other countries. Now, the U.N. wishes to peacefully solve the problem with a dictator who wants everything but peace.
This whole scenario sounds like a similar situation that happened in the late 1930s. Britain tried diplomacy and appeasement to keep the Germans from attacking other countries, even when it became blatantly obvious that this was not the solution. Because of this shortsightedness, hundreds of thousands of young troops lost their lives fighting the powerful Nazis of the 1940s, instead of the weak Nazis of the 1930s, who would have killed far less allied troops.
Some problems cannot be solved peacefully. What makes anyone think the U.N. could do a better job this time? When will we learn from previous experiences and mistakes?
Jim Nesbitt, Madeira
