WE FEW, WE HAPPY FEW
WHILE I AGREE with Robert Kagan and William Kristol that the pacification of Iraq will require more troops (“Too Few Troops,” April 26), in my judgment they will be necessary, but not sufficient, to achieve our war aims. What matters is not how many troops we place in Iraq. What matters is whether we are prepared to use them to achieve victory.
Consider Vietnam. American deployments there began with just a few thousand advisers, then escalated upward to several thousand advisers, and then to over half a million troops. And still the United States lost. It is clear, then, that merely increasing numbers will not guarantee victory.
The war in Iraq will be won or lost like any other. And the side whose will to win is greater will win it. Indeed, something magical happens when one side in a conflict suffers catastrophic losses without being able to inflict proportional casualties on its tormentor: It gives up. A victor nation must impose its will on the vanquished. It is unfortunate, but necessary, that we understand the way to do this is by inflicting so many casualties that the loser accepts defeat.
JAMES H. FINK
Lincoln, MA
I AM IN FULL AGREEMENT with Robert Kagan and William Kristol’s “Too Few Troops.”
As a U.S. Navy veteran, I am appalled by both the civilian leadership at the Pentagon and the uniform leadership’s blatant disregard for the safety of our soldiers in Iraq.
It is clear to anyone willing to look honestly at the situation that we need more troops on the ground in Iraq. I have supported this war from the beginning, but I am angry that our soldiers are being sacrificed needlessly because of incompetent leadership in the Pentagon.
I know how the military works. Donald Rumsfeld has repeatedly said that if the commanders on the ground request more troops, they will get them. And yet I wonder: What would happen to the careers of those commanders if they asked for the additional troops we need so desperately?
WAYNE HOWARD JOHNSON
Ham Lake, MN
NO SUBSTITUTE
LARRY MILLER’S ARTICLE “Win Now” (April 26) struck a chord with me. That’s probably because I am writing this letter three days shy of graduating from the Army’s Field Artillery Officers’ Basic Course.
September 11, the war to liberate Afghanistan from the Taliban and al Qaeda, and the initial invasion of Iraq all took place while I was still a cadet, although my brother, also in the Army, fought in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Once I am done with my training, I will be headed not to the Sunni Triangle, but to South Korea.
Yet I know my turn will eventually come. Which is why I hope the president follows Larry Miller’s advice: Win now. Which is why I also hope that we see the recent uprisings in Falluja and Najaf as the opportunity they are. Our enemy has exposed himself and come out into the daylight. The correct course of action is to crush him violently–not to push him back underground with as little force as possible.
The terrorists, Baathists, and Sunni insurgents in Falluja, as well as Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army, have provided the United States with an opportunity to launch an all-out assault on our enemies. The fact that the insurgency is growing a spine gives us a chance to break that spine. Negotiation is counterproductive.
DOUGLAS MATTHEW WEBER
Fort Sill, OK
CATHOLIC SCHOOL
JOSEPH BOTTUM’S “John Kerry, in the Catholic Tradition” (April 26) teases out some of the paradoxes facing Catholics who plan to vote in this year’s presidential contest. But it should be said that the Catholic bishops now planning punitive measures against pro-choice Catholic politicians benefit from a widespread misunderstanding about the nature of the abortion debate.
The basic question before the country is not whether one favors or opposes abortion as a matter of abstract morality or personal behavior. Rather, the issue is whether one believes the existing federal law should be changed, either by individual states following a Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, or by constitutional amendment, to make abortion once again a criminal offense.
A Catholic politician, even one opposed to abortion in the great majority of circumstances, might well decide to leave ill enough alone on this subject as far as the secular law is concerned.
PETER M.CONNOLLY
Washington, DC
FIRESTARTER
AS A CAREER, non-union, suburban, and conservative fire officer, I agree with Eli Lehrer’s observations on the changing fire service, but not his analysis of it (“Do We Need More Firefighters?” April 12/April 19). The fire service is truly in the midst of an identity crisis, but for a multitude of reasons–not just a dramatic decrease in fires. Indeed, the anxiety stems from the public’s rising expectations that departments fulfill an unclear mandate.
For over 100 years, the primary tasks for a fire department have been the extinguishment of fires and the management of associated life hazards. However, over the past 20 years, technological advancements, as well as changes in our society, have forced fire departments to begin retooling their programs. While Lehrer is correct that the number of actual fires is down significantly, that does not mean there are fewer requests for the fire department to provide public services. Indeed, these days the majority of requests are, by far, requests for medical care. In addition to such requests, fire departments now run citywide call centers, bicycle safety programs, and baby-sitting advice programs. They administer flu shots, investigate unknown noises, manage hazardous substances and wildland pests . . . all in addition to well-known services like urban search and rescue and hometown emergency preparedness.
It’s not that the fire service isn’t organized. It’s that the fire service has apparently become this country’s foremost problem-solving organization. Fire department dispatch centers now receive calls for noisy furnaces when no repairmen are available, transportation to emergency rooms when personal physicians can’t take an appointment, and help in moving invalids from cars to homes to beds.
What makes this a true crisis, however, is that the public expects the same high-quality level of service to be maintained for firefighting–as well as all of the other new services fire departments now provide–without any additional funding. High-quality service requires time, training, equipment, and manpower. And where those resources used to be confined to firefighting, they’re now being rapidly and thinly spread over a variety of functions. We should be grateful that the majority of the population will never have the need for the fire department. But it’s the new and demanding requests for resources that have strained most fire department budgets and many municipal budgets as well.
Too often the fire service seems a necessary evil to municipal leaders and citizens. This is because it’s one of the few municipal departments that produce little or no revenue. But, from the fire service’s perspective, it can’t always reconcile increased requests for service with the body politic’s unwillingness to provide funds and resources. And yet the department is still expected to provide the highest level of service. While many local governments can make similar claims, reductions in fire service quality are more frequently obvious and therefore highly criticized. All of which equals a tight line to walk for firefighters.
These days one can see easily a fire service that is pulled in constantly changing directions, held to an unclear standard, and receiving limited funds. People in the fire service take pride in their line of work and want to do their best no matter how complex the job gets. Which means that, if the firefighter’s union is endorsing John Kerry, it’s not because he will feed the union federal dollars. It’s that the fire service is grasping to find anyone who’s willing to help support its new, and increasingly vague, mission.
CHRIS TRUTY
Wheaton, IL
<<b>p><<b>b><<b>u>Democracy Gap</<b>b></<b>u></<b>p>
WHILE I GENERALLY APPLAUD President Bush’s efforts to liberate Iraq, it gives me pause to read articles like Stephen Schwartz’s “Falluja’s Friends” (April 26). Schwartz’s article raises an important question: whether or not democracy can take root in a culture swathed in the more virulent strains of Islam. There is nothing in the shadows of Wahhabism to suggest that it can participate in democratic politics. All peoples may yearn for freedom, as President Bush is right to point out again and again. But not every culture can provide it.
THOMAS M. BEATTIE
Mt. Vernon, VA
FLASHBACK
FRED BARNES’S “Uncovering Saddam’s Crimes” (April 26) left no doubt in my mind that the former Iraqi dictator is guilty of crimes against humanity.
So it’s unfortunate that, before and during what Barnes calls “the most famous” period of Saddam’s mass murders (1986-1988), the United States maintained an (albeit uneasy) alliance with the Iraqi government. The United States stopped supporting Saddam only when we no longer saw it in our self-interest: specifically, after he invaded Kuwait in 1990 and threatened Saudi Arabia’s oil fields.
Saddam’s mass graves are a painful reminder of why many doubt the sincerity of our government’s rhetoric about promoting human rights and democracy abroad.
BOB PALMER
Chicago, IL
SOCK IT TOOMEY
HERE’S ONE FACTOR left out in Stephen F. Hayes’s excellent rundown on the primary battle between Senator Arlen Specter and Congressman Pat Toomey: electability (“A Challenger Haunts Specter,” April 26). Toomey’s movement conservatism would’ve faced an uphill battle in tightly-divided Pennsylvania. The fact is that if Republicans want to be the national governing party, then they need moderates like Arlen Specter.
MIKE LIEDTKA
Yardley, PA
ERRATA
THE GURKHA REBELLION mentioned in David Tell’s editorial, “The 9/11 Commission Looks Backward” (April 26), took place in 1814, not in 1914.
