Putting More Boots 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, California, U.S.

"What a surge really means" depict-ed 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, California, U.S.

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 like Iran 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, California, U.S.

Superpowers that invade defenseless nations have to maintain a higher moral standard than the terrorist organizations that maim and kill innocent civilians. Many voices throughout the world warned of the dire consequence of invading Iraq. The U.S. and its allies need to demonstrate that the objective now is not merely to exit Iraq but also to ensure a peaceful transition to democracy.
Manie Venter
Calgary, Canada

I have always been pro-American, which makes it painful to see the U.S.'s loss of prestige and friends. It is hard to believe that the country of Lincoln, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Marshall and, let us not forget, G.I. Joe of World War II is now accused of torture, ignoring human rights and perverting the truth. Bush may have toppled Saddam Hussein, but he also pushed the U.S. off its pedestal. Meanwhile Osama bin Laden remains at large. Bush would have done well to heed Lincoln's famous words: "You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can never fool all of the people all of the time."
Puck Schotborgh
The Hague, the Netherlands

Americans may think the troops should come home, but I don't. The U.S. destabilized an entire region by attacking Iraq on some trumped-up pretext, so walking away is not an option. The U.S. created the problem and must now fix it. The very Americans who voted Bush into office must accept responsibility for their actions.
Mark Lynn
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

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, Maryland, U.S.

Thank you for letting us hear what Kristol had to say about the situation in Iraq. The proposed troop surge probably doesn't have the "good chance of success" that he claims, but it seems indubitable that American withdrawal would lead to a very grim remodeling of the Middle East. Unfortunately, all of our options now are bad; the only thing certain is that it would have been much better not to have invaded Iraq at all — something Kristol is not likely to point out, as no other journalist in America is more responsible than he is for the U.S.'s being there.
Brian Priddy
Lyons, France

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, Florida, U.S.

We would have done things "differently," said U.S. military spokesman Major General William 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. There once might have been a chance for the coalition forces to endorse new values based on respect for human freedom and dignity and to forge a future of reconciliation among Iraqi tribes and sects. But immersed in their own rhetoric and standing defiantly in the wreckage they have brought about, 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

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 be doing something to 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 given to African and other countries are very often not reaching the targeted people? I am amazed that the public does not realize where so much of its tax contributions have gone, with no accountability whatsoever.
Lee W. Rom
Johannesburg

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