To Achieve Victory in Afghanistan
Your Feb. 9 essays on Afghanistan were brilliant and seminal. In "Obama's Vietnam," John Barry and Evan Thomas masterfully examined the similarities and differences between Vietnam and Afghanistan, and Fareed Zakaria made some common-sense suggestions in "A Turnaround Strategy." But I object to the title "Obama's Vietnam." Not because I dispute the similarity of the two wars, but rather because it undeservedly and prematurely connotes and ascribes de-feat and failure to our new president. If we do not succeed in Afghanistan--and we must--it will not be Obama's Vietnam. It will be America's tragedy.
Maj. Dorian de Wind, USAF (Ret.)
Austin, Texas
Your cover story could have been headed "Obama's Vietnam: Is the Afghanistan-Pakistan Problem America's to Solve?" I was brought up in "Afghan-Pak country." These people see the United States as a bull--purposeless, enraged and lethal. The Afghan-Pak people must be allowed to define their destiny, even if it is at excruciating cultural, ethnic, economic and casualty costs. All the U.S. can do is support the region in a nonviolent manner, sidestepping the "terrorism trail."
Majid Ali
New York, New York
America's situation in Afghanistan does look disturbingly similar to Vietnam. However, the cover headline, "Obama's Vietnam," is misleading. How, may I ask, could this possibly be Obama's war? Barack Obama has been in the White House only a few weeks, having inherited a mess of gigantic proportions--two unfinished wars, both going on for a number of years; a huge economic downturn, not only in the United States but worldwide, with no real solution in sight. It is rather misleading, if not irresponsible, that your title somehow hints at putting the blame on Obama. If compared at all, it would certainly have to be called Bush's Vietnam. Please be fair.
Magda E. Winkens
Enniscorthy, Ireland
If Afghanistan is in fact made up of a group of tribes held together artificially in the way Yugoslavia and Czechoslo-vakia once were, perhaps the solution is obvious. Why not divide the land along tribal lines into a series of "new" countries? This should please most warlords and local leaders. Coalition resources would then be truly able to focus on nation building while placing fewer personnel and civilians in harm's way.
Joel L. Goldman
Toronto, Canada
The "no nation" that John Barry and Evan Thomas refer to is a country with a population of more than 30 million, of whom about 45 percent are children. These impoverished, illiterate people (who may have never heard of Vietnam) want only food, shelter and safety. Their "semi-failed" state was a developing, peaceful country until the late 1970s, when it was caught in a proxy war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. The anarchy that followed and the subsequent takeover by the Taliban, along with the atrocities and destruction it unleashed, are well known. There can be no doubt that the United States will succeed in eliminating the Taliban in Afghanistan and cutting off its sources in Pakistan. However, the U.S. and the international community must pro-vide food, homes and succor to the people who have long suffered; this cannot wait until final victory. Apart from soldiers, the country needs doctors, teachers, engineers, traders and builders. Countries unwilling to join the military effort can surely help with humanitarian assistance and rebuilding, which will be required long after the soldiers have gone home. Afghanistan must not be abandoned again.
Rajendra N. Srivastava
New Delhi, India
The Afghanistan imbroglio is not America's responsibility alone. In a sense, all free countries share a moral duty in confronting the risks and dangers stemming from violent and hate-filled jihadism. It appears that the memories of the attacks in Madrid on March 11, 2004, and in London on July 7, 2005, are fading into the background of many people's minds, superseded by more recent concerns and anxie-ties, like the worldwide economic crisis. Obama was markedly diplomatic last July when he spoke to the crowds in Berlin as a candidate. The question is whether as president he can muster all his rhetorical prowess to persuade old allies to pull just a little more of their weight in the future.
Werner Radtke
Paderborn, Germany
The first two paragraphs of "Obama's Vietnam" demonstrate the problems we have not only in Afghanistan but in the region at large. This is both a military and a cultural war. As with Vietnam, we don't really understand the culture we are confronting. Power-hungry imams and mullahs have created a mass of under-educated youth to follow their violent directives. Weapons cannot change beliefs; understanding can. Why not replace our soldiers with people who have some familiarity with the culture and can help bring understanding into a knowledge vacuum and preach cooperation and tolerance to those who have never known it? We will ultimately save more of their lives than our own.
Jeremy Gorman
Wilmington, Vermont
Though Fareed Zakaria's piece was well written, its ideas bordered on cliché. Like it or not, America has few sympathizers in the Muslim world. How can one make a distinction, as he suggests, between the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other Islamist entities such as the Saudi monarchy and Pakistan? Remember, they were on the same side before September 11, 2001. A week later the first two were against America and the others were for it. In the Middle East and South Asia, loyalty may have a price, but religion doesn't. The sooner Washington realizes this, the better.
Gautham Venkata-Chalam
Brussels, Belgium
Israel on the IAEA's Ineffectiveness
The director of the international Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei ("On Nukes, Tread Softly," Feb. 9), has failed to persuade Syria to allow a visit by the IAEA's inspectors to three sites suspected to be part of Syria's covert nuclear program. He has also failed in his feeble demand for a proper investigation of Syria's bulldozing of the wreckage and the cleanup operation at the Dair Alzour site, where Syria is suspected of constructing a North Korean nuclear reactor in clear violation of its Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement with the agency. Instead, ElBaradei lashes out at the state of Israel. Unfortunately, this has become a common practice by the director of the IAEA in his efforts to divert attention from his failure to conduct a vigorous and conclusive investigation amid mounting evidence of gross violations of international obligations under the NPT by some of its Middle Eastern members.
Nili Lifshitz, Spokeswoman
Israeli Atomic Energy Commission
Tel Aviv, Israel
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (" 'We Expect Justice From Now On'," Feb. 9) and IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei take the occasion of their interviews to bash Israel for its actions. Erdogan conveniently forgets how Turkey has responded to Kurdish terrorist attacks against his nation, with a military campaign rendering millions of Kurds homeless and killing thousands. ElBaradei's statement that Israel should have first asked his agency to investigate the nuclear-bomb facility in Syria before taking any action stretches the limits of belief. The IAEA has investigated the Iranian nuclear program for years while that nation gets ever closer to nuclear-bomb capability.
Nelson Marans
Silver Spring, Maryland
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan cannot give moral lessons to Israel. Remember the murder of 1.5 million Armenians from 1915 to 1917? The Turks never apologized for the slaughter.
Freddy Mintz
Charlotte, North Carolina