Letters

Our

report from the front lines of the warfare between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims in Iraq provoked some readers to contest the idea that the U.S. invasion sparked the fire, while others hoped for peace

As long as the eye-for-an-eye mentality dominates Middle East thought and behavior, there is little hope for a peaceable solution to Iraq's incipient civil war [March 6]. The philosophy of perpetual retaliation is devoid of love and not a part of God's plan for the human family. If the world hopes to survive and thrive, a holy war between Christian, Jewish and Islamic factions must be avoided. It is time to bury the sword and put on the mantle of love that should be worn in churches, synagogues and mosques everywhere.
Paul L. Whiteley Sr.
Louisville, Kentucky, U.S.

Before the usual voices claim that the sectarian violence in Iraq is evidence of the futility of toppling Saddam Hussein, consider that the worst repressor of individual freedom in the Middle East—Iran—is still busy fomenting strife among its neighbors. Its hand shows up in not just Iraq but also Syria and Lebanon. It is convenient for Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatullah Ali Khamenei, to blame the U.S. for Iraq's current troubles while his agents are busy there. Iran's militant regime is sowing chaos in the Middle East as it goes flat out to develop nuclear weapons. It needs a distracted West and a war-torn Iraq to accomplish that goal. The sooner we face that reality, the more rational our analysis will be.
Tom Minchin
Melbourne, Australia

What even the ordinary man in the street foresaw before the Bush Administration started its war has at last come true: a country that the dictator Saddam held together with a brutal, tight grip is spinning out of control. People unaccustomed to democracy and split by long-lasting rivalries are unlikely to seek peaceful coexistence. Maybe the American ideal of a national melting pot enticed the Bush Administration into irresponsibly simplifying the complicated situation in Iraq.
Hans Gerbig
Gersthofen, Germany

I can't accept the argument that the escalating sectarian violence in Iraq has nothing to do with 24 years of Sunni oppression of Shi'ites and Kurds under Saddam but is the result of the incompetent U.S. invasion. What about the passion to avenge atrocities committed by the former regime? The U.S. can't be blamed for that. Still, Iraqis are probably better off with a dictator, somebody to force them to get along. They are a people who thrive on dictatorships and blood feuds.
Michael Klena
Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.

Perhaps history is a wise teacher and a solution to Iraq's problems can be found in the example of Yugoslavia. If the Shi'ites and the Sunnis refuse to cooperate, let them form separate states. Otherwise, they will continue to battle. The Shi'ites don't want to share the power that they have gained since Saddam's overthrow, and the Sunnis refuse to accept minority status in the new government. If dissolving the former Soviet empire and breaking up its satellite states of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia made sense, why doesn't separation make sense for Iraq?
Bob Mason
St. Albert, Canada

Consolidating post-Saddam Iraq could prove more expensive than the war itself. Meanwhile, there is growing resentment in the U.S. at the continuing loss of American lives. And if the U.S. were to declare war on Iran, a dwindling "coalition of the willing" might eventually become a "coalition of the billing," making opportunistic demands on the U.S. More important, oil prices may hit $100 or more per barrel if Iran embargoes its oil exports or bottles up oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation. And the U.S.'s huge budget deficit, compounded by war, inflation and soaring oil prices, would make a nasty dent in George W. Bush's image in his own country.
Kangayam R. Narasimhan
Chennai, India

Your cover story gave an apocalyptic view of Iraq and perhaps a plausible excuse for Bush's antagonists to smirk. But Iraq will come out of this quagmire just as the U.S. did after its Civil War. Iraq needs only to look within itself to solve its problems, like any other nation. What Iraq is going through often happens to people who are given a chance for self-awareness, self-discovery and self-expression—a chance to exhale—after having been oppressed, shackled, silenced and placed in the dark. The unfortunate thing is that terrorists and enemies of the free world have now seized on Iraq as a base from which to operate. The world must hope that the Iraqis resist them.
Cosmas Uzoma Odoemena
Sokoto, Nigeria

On a Different Wavelength
Joe Klein's column "Bush's Broken Political Antenna" [March 6] remarked that in response to recent controversies, ranging from the debate over foreign control of U.S. ports to the awful news coming from Iraq and Iran, the President is beginning to sound "airy and out of touch." But Bush has always been that way. It's just finally sinking in that something has gone very wrong. Bush has made mistake after mistake without ever offering an explanation or holding anyone accountable. This is the man we are trusting with our security? He is in denial while the rest of us look on aghast at his incompetence. I hope all those who voted to re-elect him realize their mistake.
Sue Brown
West Hartford, Connecticut, U.S.

Bring Back the Big Easy
"The Big Blank Canvas" [March 6], about the struggles the people of New Orleans are facing as they attempt to rebuild, made for sad reading. I spent a very enjoyable holiday in the city in December 2004. I was struck by the vibrancy of the place, the style of the houses and the friendliness of the people. It appears that the decision to rebuild the city is being questioned. How can the wealthiest country in the world turn its back on its own people? America may spend $30 billion reconstructing Iraq but quibbles about spending money on New Orleans. Let's hope that the recent Mardi Gras celebration will rally public opinion in favor of rebuilding the once proud city.
Tony Keast
Halifax, England

Passage to India
"Let's Be Friends" [March 6] stated that President Bush's visit to India would inaugurate a new era of cooperation between the two powers. Indians highly appreciate and value the President's friendship with India. Let the two great countries engage in a joint partnership to advance international peace and prosperity based on the tenets of democracy, freedom and human dignity. An economically strong and united India will provide much needed balance, succor and harmony to the world community.
Subhash C. Kapoor
Noida, India

West Snubs East
I was very surprised by the Europeans' resistance to Indian tycoon Lakshmi Mittal's takeover bid for Arcelor steel [Feb. 13]. We in the East are working very hard to establish societies based on European values. But the European hostility toward an Indian's move into their world has shattered our confidence. On the merger issue, it is very sad to note that the Europeans turned out to be as conservative as any traditional Easterner. Their reaction confirmed that a strong psychological barrier between West and East still exists.
Anis Alam Saeed
Karachi

End the Acrimony
Your report on the Philippines' 1986 People Power movement, which jettisoned the Ferdinand Marcos dictatorship, depicted the miscarriage of the nation's effort to achieve a vibrant democracy [Feb. 27]. The Philippines has the potential to reclaim its status as one of Asia's wealthiest countries. But its inexhaustible supply of acrimony, cynicism and outright selfishness—especially as manifested by the political class—has thwarted its aspirations. Filipinos should rally around constructive reforms aimed at long-term development. Only when the government and its people embrace disciplined measures can the nation achieve lasting peace and prosperity—a new People Power. Who knows? Within 20 years, the nation might just emancipate itself from its recurrent quagmires and regain its rightful place in Asia, if not the world.
Michael Victor G. Ong
Santa Rosa, the Philippines