In “A Bitter War of Choice” (PostOpinion, Sept. 11), George Will discusses the difference between “wars of choice” – Korea, Vietnam and Iraq – and World War II, which we were “forced” to enter.
In fact, World War II was no less a war of choice than the others.
The real difference between World War II and each of the three subsequent wars is the goal.
In World War II, the goal was to defeat the enemy and win the war, whatever it took.
The result has been the replacement of two totalitarian states with enduring democracies.
Unfortunately, the goal in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq was to win “the hearts and minds of the people” without breaking too many things.
The result in each case is an ongoing, ever-growing threat.
The wisdom of our choice to go to war in each instance can be argued, but once the choice is made, winning must be the only option.
Walter M. Kane
Harriman
Because Will is usually such an articulate and sensible pundit, it is important to see how wrong he is on our Iraq policy.
He has written three columns in a row on it and has been mistaken in all three.
Most recently, Will asserted that President Bush’s visit to Iraq without visiting the capital “confirmed the flimsiness of the fallback rationale for the war – the creation of a unified, pluralist Iraq.”
Our fundamental objective in Iraq is not necessarily political reconciliation.
Rather, it is to contribute to our safety in the global War on Terror.
To obtain this objective we may have to put up with an unstable society in Iraq for a long time.
Any kind of pullout before the Iraqi military is up to the job may increase our vulnerability to terrorist attacks.
If it will significantly add to our safety, we might have to accept an outcome in which 150,000 American troops are stationed in Iraq permanently in order to keep the peace and keep us safe.
Dave M. O’Neill
Manhattan
During the first year of World War II, as the Japanese were overrunning U.S. bases in the Pacific, it could very easily have been argued that the United States was losing the war.
History, however, tells us a different story. We must not, and cannot, afford to set any timetable for a complete withdrawal from Iraq until a final victory over terrorism is achieved.
Anything less would have disastrous consequences, putting the safety of our citizens in jeopardy for the next decade.
Dan Stevens
Marlboro, N.J.