Dear Editor,
I am writing with concerns to Will Haun's article 'Iraq: right war, right time" (Dec. 8, 2005). Per usual, in reading Mr. Haun's columns, I find myself in utter disappointment at the lack of informed analysis and the distortion of historical evidence.ÿ In approaching the article critically, I feel it best to target one of last portions, denoting the ongoing war as "the fastest and most successful war in American History."ÿ One should suppose Mr. Haun correct here if we are to take seriously Mr. Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' stunt that declared major military operations over, but as fighting on the ground in Iraq seems to intensify daily as the death toll mounts mutually in, if I may be so bold, considerably large and costly military operations, it seems rather preposterous to praise the efficiency with which the war is progressing so quickly and successfully, given so much talk in the military and elsewhere of a growing civil war.
ÿFurthermore, while I would share a critical view of both the United Nations and Mr. Clinton, the idea that the UN, as Mr. Haun likes to refer to as "a corrupted, dictator-run institution" seems to lack self-reflection on the nature of US actions in even just the post-World War II period. Possibly Mr. Haun has forgotten the sustained US support for Diem and Thieu Nguyen Van during the Vietnam war, Augusto Pinochet, Somoza, Slobodan Milosevic and even Mr. Hussein, who had our support until he trampled on US-friendly ground of Kuwait.ÿ Those biological weapons capabilities Mr. Haun speaks of to which have reeked such genocidal havoc on the Kurds, I beg of where they came from, were they not from the CIA under the Reagan administration for use against Iran?ÿ Did the Reagan Administration not stand by while Hussein turned the weapons against those he ruled?ÿ The US support for dictatorial regimes in even just the post-World War II period is disturbing, thus if we suppose the UN is made up of dictators, is it not the US that has kept at least some of them in power?ÿ As it seems to difficult for Mr. Haun to remember, I will remind him that in its ever embattled quest for democracy, the US stood by as Hussein, with notable murderous fervor and US-supplied weaponry, cracked down on the US-advocated Kurdish and Shiite uprisings after the first Gulf War.
ÿ I urge Mr. Haun to consult the writings and histories of Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Wolfowitz in considering his rather naive and propagandous approach to the geo-political and historical complications of the ongoing war in Iraq. Shout all you want, Mr. Haun, at uninformed partisan bickering, but turn such criticism first to yourself before railing outwards.
Ian Maley SPA, '08
Dear Editor,
Will Haun's article making the case for the Iraq War seems a bit dated. Didn't we have this debate several years ago, during the actual buildup to the war? One has to wonder why Mr. Haun has decided to bring up such an old argument. The answer is clear: he is (like the rest of the Bush Administration) attempting to cause the public to look away from how the war is going currently. It is crucial to remember that our President declared an end to major combat operations, essentially claiming victory. The only other time such a large mistake was made was during the Vietnam War. Vice President Cheney said on May 31st of this year that the insurgency was "in the last throes". It might interest Mr. Haun that since that date, exactly 625 have been killed by these supposedly weakened terrorists. Mr. Haun does not bring up the current situation at all.
ÿ Surprisingly, Mr. Haun has chosen to go down the oft-traveled roadof "Saddam and al-Qaeda worked together". I find this surprising because it has been shot down so many times before. Mr. Haun brings no sources for his many statements about Iraqi involvement with al-Qaeda. I do. The September 11th Commission found that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al-Qaeda. To further quote the Commission's report: "Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." Is this not enough evidence for Mr. Haun? I know that he also argues that Hussein supported terrorists attacking Israel. Even if Mr. Haun had proof for this statement (which he does not provide), this would only give Israel a credible reason to attack Iraq, not America. Does Mr. Haun suggest we attack Hezbollah?ÿ
ÿ ÿ Mr. Haun also claims that Iraq was actively constructing Weapons of Mass Destruction. Once again, he is undone by the United States government. I would suggest that Mr. Haun read the Duelfer Report, a CIA-authorized report by the director of intelligence on Iraqi weapons, Charles Duelfer. According to an article on the report published by CNN, "Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them".
ÿ ÿ Finally, Mr. Haun ignores the biggest mistake in going to war with Iraq. By entering the blunder of a war, we have ignored our two biggest threats: Iran and North Korea. By ignoring these two real threats, it is impossible to gauge how much damage the Bush Administration has done to the future. There is no good reason for Mr. Haun to defend such a mistake.
David Grossman SPA, '09
