After reading the letter, “Civilian deaths sad, but can’t alter will” in The Herald Wednesday, my jaw was practically in my lap. Seriously comparing Iraq to World War II is a staggeringly ludicrous proposition. Yet, the writer is not the only person I have encountered who believes this bizarre comparison to be accurate.
The letter points out that more soldiers died in single battles of WWII than have died in the entirety of the Iraq war, yet seems incapable of connecting the dots toward understanding that the wars are different.
America is the superpower today, both militarily and economically. If we thought the issues in Iraq were truly as momentous and direly important as those of WWII, can any rational person really, really believe we wouldn’t win? Even without allies? Please remember that all branches of government have been under Bush (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove) control for up to six years. If Iraq were truly so important, there would have been a draft, the economy would have been put on a war footing and a year later Iraq would either be ours or a lifeless wasteland.
We are in Iraq because there is a segment of the old guard in D.C. who have been obsessed for decades with the idea of obtaining a permanent presence in the Middle East and thought this was their chance. They refused to listen to those who thought otherwise and now the altar of Mars is once again being piled high with burnt offerings of treasure and bodies, to no good purpose.
America is not in a fight for its life. It may be in a fight for its soul, but the battleground is here, not there.
William Reid
Everett
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
