To the Editor:
Re “Panel Urges Basic Shift in U.S. Policy in Iraq” (front page, Dec. 7):
Reading the 79 recommendations from the Iraq Study Group, I can’t imagine President Bush admitting his failures; bringing in controversial experts to help him carry out its suggestions when he surrounds himself only with yes people; and allowing diplomatic talks to take place with Iran and Syria.
The report shows the utter chaos in our interagency communications; the frustration of the military generals; our abject failure of privatizing reconstruction; the wasted money on building permanent bases; and the complete lack of knowledge of the history in the Middle East.
And those are just a few of the problems!
What a rebuke to the Decider. All I can say is what a mess, and good luck. Jacqueline Jones
Portland, Ore., Dec. 7, 2006
•
To the Editor:
Reading your article about the Iraq Study Group’s report, I could only wonder: Does it occur to anyone else how sad it is that there had to be a study on the war in Iraq at all?
A competent president with advisers both military and civilian would have had a grip on the situation, the mood of the country and the political ramifications of our policy (or lack thereof) in Iraq and acted accordingly.
The president waited until after the election to bend ever so slightly away from “staying the course,” and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s memo admitting failure was secret until after his resignation.
Meanwhile, the committee investigating the Iraq war was taking care of business while the president waited in the wings for guidance and answers.
The public saw the results of the study coming for a year or more; there is nothing revealing or new in the report that hasn’t been in the news or on the lips of advisers for months.
We now have to wait and see if in the president’s skewed view, this report is more credible than all the professional input he has received over the last three years.
What a waste of time, money and, sadly, more lives in Iraq.
Laure Dunne
Darien, Conn., Dec. 7, 2006
•
To the Editor:
While our country spends money and loses face by hiring an elite panel of advisers to help us out of Iraq, let’s also remember a different group of advisers: the “focus group” of millions of Americans (and millions worldwide) who took to the streets in 2002 and 2003 to protest invading in the first place.
Many of them, with none of this panel’s expertise, had the common sense to expect the very situation we’re in now. David Dartley
New York, Dec. 7, 2006
•
To the Editor:
Your front-page article says that rather than embracing President Bush’s goal of “victory in Iraq” or “the White House’s early aspiration that Iraq might be transformed into a democracy in the near future … the panel chose instead the formulation that Mr. Bush has adopted most recently: to establish a country that can sustain itself, govern itself and defend itself.”
Wasn’t that precisely the situation that existed in Iraq before our invasion? Warren Nadel
New York, Dec. 7, 2006
•
To the Editor:
Re “Welcome Political Cover” (editorial, Dec. 7):
Before The Times and the American people embrace the findings of the Iraq Study Group, the following should be seriously considered:
¶The conclusions do not reflect the results of the Nov. 7 election, which clearly gave our elected officials a mandate to get out of Iraq post-haste, nor do they honor the wishes of the American people reflected in the polls, which sent the same message.
¶The conclusions do not honor the wishes of the Iraqi people, who overwhelmingly support the end of the ill-conceived occupation of their country.
¶The conclusions do not reflect the views of much of the leadership of the Democratic Party, elected to the majority of both houses of Congress, which called for a phased redeployment of American troops outside of Iraq within six months.
While the media insist that the Iraq Study Group is nonpartisan (only to the extent that it is composed of five Republicans and five Democrats), the group did not pick up the mood of the country at all, nor did it adequately represent us in a supposedly representative democracy. Dennis Dalrymple
New York, Dec. 7, 2006
•
To the Editor:
Your Dec. 7 editorial concerning the Iraq Study Group’s report is helpfully but sadly put in perspective by your front-page news analysis the same day, “Will It Work in the White House?”
For it to work in the White House, President Bush must be able to admit, at least to himself, that his policy in Iraq, if it can be called that, has not worked and that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating. He must also be able to accept the criticisms implicit in the report.
Nothing in his six years in office has shown him capable of such honest introspection. The fact that the report does offer Mr. Bush a chance to gather a bipartisan consensus for change is a compliment to the report.
But Mr. Bush, since being anointed president in 2000 by the Supreme Court and very narrowly winning an election in 2004, has acted like an emperor with a mandate to do as he sees fit.
To Mr. Bush, bipartisan means having the support of his friend Tony Blair.
Under the circumstances, the Iraq Study Group has delivered a decent and bipartisan report. One fears that Mr. Bush is too far out of touch with reality to use it to get the country out of the hole he has dug.
Theodore S. Voelker
Copake, N.Y., Dec. 7, 2006
•
To the Editor:
Your Dec. 7 front-page news analysis of the Iraq Study Group report describes the report’s nuanced “shaping” of the president’s thinking. You quote James A. Baker III, the group’s co-chairman, as saying President Bush is “conflicted” about Iraq, and you write that Republicans are waiting for clues about what Mr. Bush will do.
On the day the report was released, 10 more American troops were killed in Iraq. The results of the November election left no doubt that the American people want to end the deployment and deaths of our troops in Iraq.
Yet despite this clear message, our misguided foreign adventure continues to hang on the vicissitudes of an overwhelmingly unpopular president.
The government was given a mandate to act. Whatever euphemisms it chooses to use, we need a short-term timetable for removing our combat troops from Iraq.
Wendy Geringer
Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.
Dec. 7, 2006
•
To the Editor:
The Iraq Study Group’s call for diplomatic engagement of Iran and Syria is a prudent recommendation that, if carried out by the Bush administration, will probably contribute to Iraq’s stability, as Iran is equally concerned about the spiraling sectarian-insurgency conflict, which may spill over into the country.
In turn, such a dialogue may contribute to the resolution of the nuclear standoff with Iran, by improving the climate between the two countries, all the more reason for the Security Council to avoid hasty sanctions that could torpedo the proposed United States-Iranian dialogue on security in Iraq and the region.
Kaveh Afrasiabi
Cambridge, Mass., Dec. 7, 2006
The writer is a former adviser to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team.
•
To the Editor:
Re “Bush Urges Shiite Leader to Support Premier” (news article, Dec. 5):
The attitude of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, a powerful Shiite leader in Iraq, toward the policies of President Bush portends benefits for the Shiites in Iraq that may well be harmful to our interests in the long run.
Our military is engaged in hostilities daily in Iraq with Shiites and Sunnis. But most of our efforts are directed against the Sunnis. Attacks by Shiite militiamen and our military activity are draining the power of the Sunnis, and in effect we are taking sides and ensuring an eventual Shiite victory in a civil war. Negotiations with Saudi Arabia on this matter are imperative. Connell J. Maguire
Riviera Beach, Fla., Dec. 5, 2006
The writer is a retired Navy captain.
