State Department cut out
Your Associated Press coverage of the invasion of Iraq makes it clear that the United States will win and will experience few casualties in doing so. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Iraqis.
Although casualty figures may not compare to Vietnam-era casualties, there are still tens of thousands dead or wounded.
Even so, neoconservatives like Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle plan a long U.S. occupation of Iraq, directed entirely by the Pentagon rather then the State Department, and with only minimal participation by other countries and the U.N.
Their scheme calls for setting up a provisional government in which Americans head each of the 23 ministries.
In essence, they want to win the peace the way the U.S. has pushed for war: alone. They fail to anticipate the animosity they face.
At the State Department, officials worry that not including the U.N. in post-war planning could heighten tensions between the U.S. and other important allies.
A recent L.A. Times article quoted one administration official as saying, “We’re on the verge of further alienating allies… And it looks like we’re going to do exactly what we promised we wouldn’t – take small groups of exiles with limited influence in Iraq and bring them in as the bulk of a transition government.”
International aid agencies are concerned that a Pentagon – controlled Iraq will make delivery of aid almost impossible.
A U.S. occupation of post-war Iraq could increase anti-American hatred in the Arab world, and could breed more terrorism – real terrorism on American soil, not the apocryphal kind that President Bush claimed Iraq threatened.
If led by the U.S., and Iraqi government may simply fail. That could leave Iraq in the hands of another Saddam Hussein.
The Bush promise to bringing democracy to Iraq has seemed from the first to be empty jargon impossible for fulfillment.
If Iraq is left in the hands of the Pentagon, there will be no chance of self-determination for decades.
Phil Coleman
West Brownsville
Nothing wrong with competition
What do row officers fear?
I find it interesting that the Fayette County row officers who are up for re-election do not believe they should have any competition in the upcoming primary election.
Assuming they worked to the best of their ability for the county, I would think they would welcome the competition, giving the voters a choice at the polls.
The only other scenario is that they think they are entitled to sit in those seats and “How dare anyone challenge me.”
I also find it interesting that Ms. Jan Snyder, clerk of courts, says that they met to re-affirm their political unity.
If this is truly the case, did they need to bring up Mr. (Fayette County commissioner) Sean Cavanagh at all?
Also, if it is OK for them to unify, why isn’t it right for the challengers to do the same thing?
Come on people – competition is good. Tell the voters why they should re-elect you and stop crying that you have competition.
Jeraldine T. Mazza
Vanderbilt