|
Dear FRONTLINE,
Although certainly not a dove, I am far from convinced in the legitimacy and morality of invading Iraq without more compelling evidence. Frontline this evening was illuminating regards the evolution of the "Wolfowitz Doctrine".
As a patriotic veteran, I am very uncomfortable with this latest US stance of world schoolyard bully - "play my way or I'll beat you up". This policy of preemption is arrogant, dangerous and bound to cause strong repercussions throughout the world. In my opinion it cannot bring peace to the middle east. It is certainly not a cause I would endorse and fight for.
George W, please demonstrate more thoughtful consideration regarding what advice you take.
Hugh Busey
Dear FRONTLINE,
If Bush administration's new foreign policy strategy is to use Sadaam Hussein as an example in flexing the superior might of United States by invading Iraq so let it also set a military example to bring a just peace between Israel and Palestine. It makes no moral high standing if they use military solution in Iraq and simply use other means between Israel and the Palestinians. Send American troops there and stop the killings of innocent people of both sides. This should be done immediately after Iraq. If USA guarantees Israel's security and have both parties to negotiate peace and the creation of Palestine, then Bush is justified to invade Iraq.
Jawahar hussain
New York, NY
Dear FRONTLINE,
I believe that the policy of containment is better than the administration's policy of preemption. It seems to me that the latter only serves to provoke the rogues of the world to accelerate their development and use of WMD. Containment, while it may last for many years, at least based on our experience with the Soviet Union & China maintains peace in the world, with the possible result as with the Soviet Union that we either outlive the rogues or wear them down and into extinction. I doubt very much if the hawks of this administration have any sons or daughter who would be put in harm's way when war breaks out. What really fears me is that if we defeat Saddam Hussein, we will move onto somewhere else. Heaven knows there are enough so-called "evil" regimes out there to keep us in a state of war for years to come.
Bernie Anderson
Lutherville, Maryland
Dear FRONTLINE,
Your documentatary increases my respect for President Bush #43 and the problems he faces within his own policy establishment, which have helped create a sense of confusion and muddle that partly account for some of the reactions of those who should be allies of the United States. He has clearly inherited the legacy of mistakes and half measures of his predecessor, Bush #41 and of Powell, Scowcroft, et al. Iraqi aggression and threats should have been dealt with by completing the job in 1991, when no huge further measures were required and when there was an alliance in being behind American leadership. What seems to be the case is that B#41, Powell, and Scowcroft have been engaged in a bureaucratic game to cover up the errors they made at that time. Whatever in fact happens, once the Iraqi situation has been resolved, Bush #43 should take care of the muddle at home by quietly replacing Powell, not with a hawk, but with the essentially realistic, brillliant, and competent Condoleeza Rice. Powell should be loaded with honors, but removed from positions where he can further influence the conduct of affairs.
Saul Silverman
Dear FRONTLINE,
The long term strategy for the U.S.A. must include goverment change for nations willing to use force against others. Iraq is a prime example. The american policy must include replacing these goverments with pro-democratic goverments through the education of future leaders of these target nations in the U.S.A.
This is a long term process and can not be delayed. September 11 was only the start because the radical muslim movement will coninue to grow if somthing is not done to stop it. Iraq is not a radical muslim nation but it has a radical leader who has a record of attacking others. He will do it again.
Tony Sadaka
Dear FRONTLINE,
Although I have no doubt that Saddam Hussein did all that he could to obstruct the work of the inspectors, you fail to mention that one problem was that the UN inspectors were compromised by the presence of CIA agents. Their presence obviously raised security concerns for the Iraq state. Secondly, you failed to mention why the UN inspectors left Iraq. You state only that they left. You and I both know they were ordered out prior to operation Desert Fox by the US, not the UN. These omissions are not insignificant; their absence especially in view of the fact that the first point is little known and the second point has been misreported in the press continues to promote a prowar stance.
Edward Rickert
Dear FRONTLINE,
Your film is nothing but a piece of bias.
Your single-handed obsession with Wolfowitz and your unabashed attempts to demonize a great man, a strategic thinker of incomparable proportions is simply shameful and unworthy of respectable journalism.
While the religious overtones of Bush's pronouncements are palpable he is a devout Christian, after all, there was no need to beat the point by showing the "axis of evil" speech with the New Testament as the backdrop. Your attempts are deconstruction at its most pathetic.
The world has changed with the fall of the Soviet Union, and, especially, after 9/11. It is time for America to act to secure its national interests, and if these interests are that there be democracy in the Middle East, which would prevent another terrorist atrocity, then it is a worthy interest. If it is in our national interest to show the European appeasers their true place, then it is in our national interest.
Nazar Khodorovsky
New York, New York
Dear FRONTLINE,
It seems strange how Iraq has suddenly come into full view again. A previous war and twelve years seemingly has been forgotten by the men who lead our country. In the rush to stop terrorists, America is once again focusing on an old enemy but the ironic thing is, we are the ones who left Saddam in power. Going into war will not stop terrorism. It will not make the world more peaceful or make the American boarders secure. I am afraid of this war that our President holds in his hands. Rising gas prices, the slumping economy and even North Korea give me more worries than Iraq. President Bush has not convinced me that war is the answer. Yes something must be done but why is the ultimatum next week? Or next month?
Marie Ursuy
Dear FRONTLINE,
Ok, we all know war should be avoided at all cost. That's an established fact. However, being the global super power carries grave responsibilities especially after the 9/11 tragedy, where we saw a terrorist plot executed almost flawlessly. Saddam Hussein is not disarming. Tape recorders or guards accompany each Iraqi scientist at UN interviews, unaccounted for chemical/biological agents, Colin Powell's representation to UN however enigmatic, and so on... But I'm not so hot about war, I mean what about the U.S. soldiers and Iraqi people that will be lost over one obstinate despot. Is it really worth it?
Ben Allen
Oneida, TN
Dear FRONTLINE,
If and when we go to war with Iraq, and the dust of the military engagement has settled, we will be faced with the monumental prospect of installing a democracy in a region that has historically shown little inclination toward such a sociopolitical system. If we can persuade the Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, et al, to embrace democratic principles and function as such, it will, in my opinion, be as close to miraculous as we're likely to see in the modern world.
Larry Dean
Auburn, NY
Dear FRONTLINE,
It seems to me as though this idealistic doctrine, whose only certain endpoints are alientaion of allies and increased hatred of United States arrogance, is predicated upon a false idea. It is obvious that Bush's fervent belief in dualism i.e. that there are two warring factions in the world, "good" and "evil" is driving the new doctrine. However, in order for the policies outlined to be successful, one must assume a FINITE and small number of potential evil leaders to overthrow; this is a difficult premise to prove. To put it simply: in 50 years, we will not have Sadaam to deal with. But it is difficult to envision a world in which, even with the new U.S. doctrine of pre-emption, there will be no leaders that need overthrown and no peoples suffering anywhere. While it is a noble goal, it is one that most logical and pragmatic individuals would find rather implausible.
Gabriel Bosslet
Columbus, oh
Dear FRONTLINE,
Wolfowitz, Pearle and company are vicious men that will lead our nation and the world to disaster. Our only hope is that President Bush has enough basic common sense and ordinary decency to follow the example of his Dad and no be rushed into a catastrophe. Our enemy is Al Qaeda. Saddam is evil. Everyone knows that. But to attack Iraq to is alienate the vast Muslim world and much else. We need to spend the energy and money bringing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to an end, which is at the root of the current mess we're in. If we had been fair minded in the Middle East at the outset and not been such a puppet of the Israeli lobby we might have been the toast of the world today instead of the big, bad villain. Mr. Bush, it's not too late. Wake up. Millions of lives depend upon your decision. Go after terrorism by helping to end injustice.
ralph roy
Dear FRONTLINE,
Finally the smoke screen linking the agenda on Iraq with the "war on terrorism" is lifted. Bush, Rumsfield, et al need to come clean and admit to the US public and the world that the current Iraq policy is a left over from the first Gulf War.
We are in real danger of being set outside of world community so that we may remove Saddam, the cost in the long run will be much higher than the administration thinks.
Douglas Berger
Columbus, Ohio
Dear FRONTLINE,
Your program reached a new, warmongering low, covering the full range of Perle to Kristol. Where was Blix? Where was Chirac? Where was Gore? Where was Kucinich? Where was the truth? Obviously lost in your quest to keep those corporate sponsors from the Carlyle Group, etc.
Tom Grace
New Berlin, New York
| |
