Iraq

Letter writer Paul R. Schlitz Jr. can't seem to grasp the fact that an acknowledgment of Iraq's potential to harbor weapons of mass destruction doesn't necessarily indicate current agreement with the decision to invade, nor does it require someone to justify the invasion ("Explain again why we invaded Iraq?" Jan. 4). It's simply an acknowledgment of the situation. We do not invade every country that has the potential to produce WMD. I would also point out that failure to acknowledge threats is no less dangerous than inflating threats.

One year after Osama bin Laden was killed by U.S. Navy SEALs at his safe house in Pakistan, a substantially weakened al-Qaida and its affiliates continue to pose a threat to the West. The Pakistan-based group's leadership has been decimated by drone strikes and is no longer believed capable of directing spectacular operations on the scale of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon. But that doesn't mean America and its allies can afford to let their guard down.

In reference to The Sun's editorial regarding the removal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq ("Home for Christmas," Dec. 25) and speaking as a veteran of five years in WWII and later recalled for three more in Korea, I am in complete disagreement with President Barack Obama's political greedy, unwise and short-sighted decision in withdrawing our troops from Iraq by the end of 2011 regardless of how they got there. Instead, I strongly believe that the U.S. should have maintained a strong standing military force in Iraq just as we did and still do in Japan, Germany and South Korea to assure that democracy remains in operation for the whole world to behold.

In reference the events of April 19, in which an explosion in Iraq killed at least 30 people, according to media accounts, it brought much sorrow to my heart. In my opinion, it could have been avoided if President Barack Obama had not withdrawn all of our troops from Iraq by the end of 2011, which was obviously a political ploy to please the general public in order to strengthen his position in the upcoming election of 2012. I strongly believed the U.S. should maintain a standing military force in Iraq to assure that a people's democracy would remain in operation there to prevent civil wars, and to eliminate the creeping influence of Iran, al Qaida, and the Taliban.

The Sun's most interesting editorial, "Fresh start in Iraq" (Dec. 27), stated, "It's vital that [Prime Minister Nouri] al-Maliki make good on his promise to lead a truly representative government that offers the hope of a better life for all its citizens. " But in my opinion, the U.S. is instead planning to remove that hope by withdrawing our troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. Look how long it took for our original 13 colonies to become a unified democratic country — not until after battles with other countries including England, Spain, France and Mexico and eventually leading to our Civil War. Also in order to protect our interests and advances following some of our past major wars, we still have standing armies in Japan, Germany and South Korea to assure the safety operation of their democratic governments and to prevent invasion by their aggressive neighbors.

After two letters in attempt to justify himself and the invasion of Iraq ("Iraq's chemical weapons stocks were well documented," Dec. 28, and "Did Saddam have WMDs before the U.S. invasion in 2003?" Jan. 2) I still can't figure out what Michael DeCicco is trying to say in regard to the astonishingly stupid decision to go to invade Iraq in 2003. Clearly American citizens were in no danger from Saddam's stockpiles of chemical weapons even if they had ever been found or used on U.S. soldiers (which they weren't)

T he Lesson Holds: What Tribal Engagement in Iraq Can Teach Us about Winning Allies in Afghanistan The Iraqi parliamentary elections last week highlight one very important lesson about tribal engagement in counterinsurgencies: It works. Voter turnout in Sunni tribal provinces such as Anbar and Diyala - formerly hotbeds of the insurgency - topped out at 70 percent. Among the long list of newly formed political parties vying for seats in parliament, more than a few boasted openly tribal affiliations.

A Maryland soldier died Thursday in Iraq, the U.S. Department of Defense said. Sgt. John F. Burner III, 32, of Baltimore, who was based at Fort Gordon, Ga., died as a result of a medical condition in Iskandariya, Iraq, said fort spokesman Buz Yarnell. He was not killed in combat. Sergeant Burner's unit, the 63rd Signal Battalion (Expeditionary), 35th Signal Brigade, deployed Aug. 21, Yarnell said. He said Sergeant Burner was survived by his wife and two daughters, ages 6 and 2, who live in Grovetown, Ga., near the base.

Dorothy Lee says it will be good to get her grandson back home from Iraq. But the Havre de Grace woman will believe it when she sees him. In the months since Pfc. Christopher Hine left for Contingency Operating Base Adder in southern Iraq, Lee has heard conflicting information about when the Maryland National Guard member will return. To her, the announcement Friday by President Barack Obama that all U.S. troops are to be withdrawn by the end of the year was just another potentially erroneous report.

Nobody except Bob Hope came over to Vietnam when I was there in '67-'68. I thank Gov. Martin O'Malley for going in harm's way to see the troops from Maryland ("Lt. Gov. Brown defends O'Malley's trip to Iraq," Mar. 2). Things can happen on these trips. William R. Bonnett Send letters to the editor to talkback@baltimoresun.com.

Famed "Veterans Against The Iraq War" activist Adam Kokesh will speak at Harford County's Campaign For Liberty April meeting. Kokesh will be the featured speaker on April 24 at 7 p.m. at the monthly Campaign for Liberty meeting at the Knights of Columbus Hall in Forest Hill. Kokesh is an Iraq war veteran who experienced combat in Fallujah, receiving the Combat Action Ribbon and the Navy Commendation Medal. Since his honorable discharge from active duty, he has been an outspoken opponent of unconstitutional U.S. wars - wars not authorized by Congress as prescribed in the Constitution.

First, a bunch of dimwits destroy our credibility with the Iraqi people in particular and the Islamic world in general by their actions at Abu Ghraib and now another group of idiots does the same in Afghanistan by burning the Quran ("Qurans burned, so have bridges," March 2). Didn't they get the memo that in asymmetrical warfare the idea is to win the hearts and minds of the indigenous people, not to antagonize them? I'm quite certain that the family and friends of the late Major Robert J. Marchant II wishes they had. Marc Raim, Baltimore

Two recent reports appearing on the same day last week in The New York Times and The Washington Post illustrate U.S. intentions in Iraq. What they reveal is that despite the heralded "end" of U.S. participation in the war there, U.S. policy continues to depend on our security apparatus to influence Iraq, at the expense of Iraqis' sovereignty and dignity. The Times report informed us that the U.S. State Departmentdecided to cut the U.S. embassy staff by 50 percent from its current 16,000 personnel.

Regarding your recent article about the continuing violence in Iraq, it's disturbing that it and many similar pieces all followed President Obama's Dec. 2010 announcement that all American troops would be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of 2011 ("Blasts targeting pilgrims kill 15, injure 52 in Iraq," Jan.10). It's quite obvious that the president's action was nothing more than a political ploy to position himself in a more favorable position for re-election in 2012. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama's announcement also created the chaotic situation the articles describe.

Letter writer Paul R. Schlitz Jr. can't seem to grasp the fact that an acknowledgment of Iraq's potential to harbor weapons of mass destruction doesn't necessarily indicate current agreement with the decision to invade, nor does it require someone to justify the invasion ("Explain again why we invaded Iraq?" Jan. 4). It's simply an acknowledgment of the situation. We do not invade every country that has the potential to produce WMD. I would also point out that failure to acknowledge threats is no less dangerous than inflating threats.

Contrary to Mary Meehan's assertion ("Ron Paul - the only choice for anti-war voters," Jan. 2), Ron Paul is not necessarily the best and certainly not the only option for anti-war voters. Indeed in the past three presidential elections, the Green Party USA has fielded candidates who have opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and have supported full repeal of the Patriot Act. The Greens' 2012 presidential candidate will no doubt maintain similar positions when he or she is nominated at the party's national convention here in Baltimore this summer.

The trouble I have with all the deficit hawks is not that they are wrong about the need for austerity concerning public finances. But I do have a problem with their short memories. It seems not so long ago we opened our vault of blood and treasure to pursue a pointless, psychopathic invasion of Iraq. These payments keep coming due, and so far as I can tell we got nothing in return but infamy from that fiasco. When you finance that level of futile brutality, who is to say that other worthy societal aspirations such as universal health care and finding alternate renewable energy sources should be done on the cheap?

After two letters in attempt to justify himself and the invasion of Iraq ("Iraq's chemical weapons stocks were well documented," Dec. 28, and "Did Saddam have WMDs before the U.S. invasion in 2003?" Jan. 2) I still can't figure out what Michael DeCicco is trying to say in regard to the astonishingly stupid decision to go to invade Iraq in 2003. Clearly American citizens were in no danger from Saddam's stockpiles of chemical weapons even if they had ever been found or used on U.S. soldiers (which they weren't)

December 31, 2011 Eleven-year-old Sy'Keirra English strides confidently to the front of the classroom and greets her teacher in his native language - Arabic. Atheed Azzet could not be more pleased. It has been three months, and the kids are grasping phrases that few of them had ever heard before he entered their lives. This tall, slim Iraqi clearly holds the allegiance of the sixth-graders at William C. March Middle School, located in a tough section of East Baltimore.