Letters

• Share

"The U.S. Army is spread not too thin but far too wide. How can any nation be entitled to plant its military in 120 countries?"
D. EUGENE LICHTY
McPherson, Kans.

LATEST COVER STORY Mind & Body Happiness Jan. 17, 2004 Past Issues Tsunami Jan. 10, 2004 ----------------- Person of the Year Jan. 3, 2004 ----------------- Secrets of the Nativity Dec. 13, 2004 ----------------- The Stealth Killer Dec. 6, 2004 ----------------- Coolest Inventions Nov. 29, 2004 ----------------- Battle for Fallujah Nov. 22, 2004 ----------------- Four More Years Nov. 15, 2004 ----------------- The Joy Of Sox Nov. 8, 2004 ----------------- The Morning After Nov. 1, 2004 ----------------- The God Gene Oct. 25, 2004 ----------------- The Vote Battle Oct. 18, 2004 ----------------- Visions of Tomorrow Oct. 11, 2004 ----------------- The Tragedy of Sudan Oct. 4, 2004 ----------------- CBS Controversy Sept. 27, 2004 ----------------- America's Border Sept. 20, 2004 ----------------- Struggle Within Islam Sept. 13, 2004 ----------------- World of George Bush Sept. 6, 2004 -----------------   SPECIAL REPORTS  Coolest Video Games 2004  Coolest Inventions  Wireless Society  Cool Tech 2004 PHOTOS AND GRAPHICS  At The Epicenter  Paths to Pleasure  Quotes of the Week  This Week's Gadget  Cartoons of the Week More graphics >> More photos >> MORE STORIES Advisor: Rove Warrior The Bushes: Family Dynasty Klein: Benneton Ad Presidency More Stories >> CNN.com: Latest News

The solution to the U.S. military's problem of being overextended lies not in adding more troops [COVER STORY, Sept. 1] but in better planning. If the military "lacks the cleanup crews"--the military police, engineering units and street-by-street peacekeepers needed to occupy whole countries for months if not years — then it shouldn't be making messes in the first place. U.S. troops should be assisted by crews provided by other countries. We must give up our unilateral madness.
TOM CIRIL
Long Beach, Calif.

I am in the military, stationed at Fort Bragg, N.C. As a husband and father, I do not like to be away. But I have a job to do. Most of us do not complain about it. The bottom line is that soldiers are going to die. We know that, our enemies know it, and it's time the American public understood it. Why should the U.S. just pull out of places that are not totally secure and exactly as we want them to be? We will continue fighting until victory is accomplished.
BARTY SORRELLS
Fort Bragg, N.C.

I find it appalling that in his interview with TIME, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said we have adequate military forces. That is not true. My husband was injured while blowing up enemy munitions. The doctors recommended that he come home to heal, but the company commander said he couldn't afford to lose him. I don't know where Rumsfeld gets his information, but mine comes from the trenches. The soldiers are saying they have had enough, they want to come home, and they are tired of doing the work of 10 men. The forces are not "adequate."
LISA CORDELL
Fort Campbell, Ky.

Of course president Bush and secretary Rumsfeld don't want to send more troops to Iraq — certainly not before the national elections next year. They are content to keep sacrificing our people. Let's send Rumsfeld!
BOB BERKE
Oakland, Calif.

How can you say America conquered Afghanistan and Iraq? In Afghanistan the Taliban still exist, and Osama bin Laden has not been found. In Iraq Saddam Hussein appears to be alive, and the country is a mess. How can you call that conquest? Iraq's ruling regime was removed, but that action has benefited terrorists. Perhaps Bush was too stupid to realize that when he took on Iraq, it wouldn't be an easy task. Would he dare attack North Korea? Never. It is not that the U.S. Army is stretched too thin; it is that Americanism and Bushism are. They are found everywhere.
PADDY SINGH
New Delhi

Why does our nation, with less than 5% of the world's population, need to have tens of thousands of troops dispersed to the ends of the earth? It is one thing to protect our borders in a defensive manner, as other nations do, but the commitment of U.S. troops around the world has empire written all over it. What, exactly, are we "protecting" in other people's sovereign lands, and why are we so hated for our efforts?
MAGGIE K. GREENBRANCH
Minneapolis, Minn.

U.S. armed forces are the most powerful military ever. America is capable at any time of turning the entire country into a war machine, as we did in World War II. We have the strength in nuclear weapons to destroy the earth many times over. As long as we have that capability, we cannot be stretched too thin, for our true power is not in manpower but in nuclear capacity. Viewed in these terms, we are the best, and it is practically impossible for us to be stretched too thin.
DANIEL PRICHARD
Savannah, Ga.

Sooner or later the U.S. is going to have to recognize that the invasion of Iraq was the greatest foreign-policy blunder in American history.
DARRELL W. BROCK
Meridian, Idaho

Until Iraq's infrastructure is secured, an honest assessment of the manpower needed to keep the peace cannot be made. The U.S. must shoulder the responsibility, regardless of the danger. When attacked, our troops must react. The American people and our allies need to see that our nation can maintain authority anywhere in the world.
DENNIS WILLIAMS
Temple, Texas

A Grievous Loss

The death of U.N. diplomat and humanitarian Sergio Vieira de Mello in the attack on U.N. headquarters in Baghdad was shocking [WORLD, Sept. 1]. Vieira de Mello, the head of the U.N.'s mission in Iraq, was an indefatigable servant of peace. To have the extraordinary life of such an accomplished and refined man so brutally snuffed out is a devastating loss. In his career, Vieira de Mello exemplified all the qualities we value most: selflessness, candor, leadership, compassion and integrity. He inspired trust and showed that an individual can make a difference. The oppressed peoples of the world have lost an eloquent champion.
INGA WALTON
Melbourne, Australia