Letters

Aft

er almost four years of fighting and more than 3,000 Americans killed in Iraq, U.S. 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

"What a Surge Really Means" [Jan. 15] 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, 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.

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 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, U.S.

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

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 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. 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

When Worldviews Collide
The "God vs. Science" debate between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins was fascinating [Jan. 15]. The arguments on both sides of the issue, however, are irrefutable, because, in the last analysis, they are subjective. Trying to prove one side or the other results in a never-ending battle of words that makes reconciliation and progress impossible. It's important that we show respect for all reasonable beliefs, even when they strongly conflict with our own.
Daniel John Biezad
San Luis Obispo, California, U.S.

Scientists will not find god unless they think outside the box, as Collins has done. Faith and miracles, so central to Christian thought, are anathema to the scientific method, as Dawkins reaffirms. "Why am I here?" and "Is there a God?", however, are not scientific questions and therefore cannot be answered by science. God comes to those who have the insight to think in another dimension and have the wisdom of a child. Collins has both; Dawkins has neither.
John S. Mackiewicz
Professor Emeritus
Biological Sciences
State University of New York
Albany, New York, U.S.

Pitting science against religion is demeaning to scientists. Science is not a side you can choose to be on; it is where we live and what we are. The scientific community seeks to discover the truth about the physical world, not make up stories. Your debate might as well set religion against gravitation or the speed of light: known facts that inform us about the universe. Science gave us physics and medicine as well as evolution, which unfortunately has aspects that can be exploited by doubters. But if we left discovery up to the religious right, we might still think the earth is flat.
Chris Jongkind
London, Canada

Nature was intelligent enough in its evolution to give rise to Richard Dawkins, who could then question whether nature is intelligent or not. But Dawkins' brand of atheism is dangerous because it hides behind the veneer of scientific credibility and academic showmanship. TIME should sponsor another debate, in which a case could be put forward for a holistic worldview, where consciousness is seen as not a by-product of biology but the other way around.
Deepak Chopra
San Diego

When considering the arguments of "God vs. Science," I always revert to the notion that we're not as smart as we think we are. The arrogance of the atheists in thinking they've figured it all out is matched only by the arrogance of the religious zealots who think the same.
Chris Kearney
Abilene, Texas, U.S.

Remembering "Mr. Jerusalem"
Former Jerusalem Mayor Teddy Kollek, a political legend who led the city for 28 years, died earlier this month, at age 95. TIME profiled Kollek in the April 12, 1982, issue:

"Kollek's friends have ranged from Anwar Sadat, who called him 'the most famous mayor in the world,' to Frank Sinatra and Marlene Dietrich. Another friend is Saul Bellow, who has provided a vivid portrait: 'Kollek is ponderous but moves quickly—a furiously active man. His is a hurtling, not a philosophical soul. His face does not rest passively on its jowls ... His reddish hair falls forward when he goes into action ... Everyone serves his ends, and no one seems harmed by such serving.' 'Destiny' is Kollek's description of how he came to be mayor: 'My whole life led up to it.' Born in Vienna 70 years ago, he became an ardent Zionist and arrived in Israel in 1935 to work on a kibbutz. During and after World War II, he undertook a number of foreign intelligence missions and helped smuggle refugees and arms into Palestine. After independence, he served for more than a decade as director general of the Prime Minister's office ... At the parade that climaxed last month's merrymaking festival of Purim, Kollek was crowned king of Jerusalem. 'I don't need to be king,' said he. 'I'm Teddy Kollek the mayor.' The crowd roared its approval." Read more at timearchive.com.