Letters

Is the U.S. Ready for War?

An attack on Iraq would only validate Osama bin Laden's dangerous extremism and further destabilize the Middle East. HAROON MOGHUL Somers, Conn.

Your article on how President Bush is making his case for an attack on Iraq [Special Report, Sept. 16] highlighted a central danger: "If the last Gulf War helped inspire evil in [Osama] bin Laden, will a new one create many more like him?" Saddam Hussein is no more dangerous now than he was before Sept. 11, 2001. Even a successful effort to change the regime in Iraq would not reduce the number of radical extremists who want to see a weakened America. Though the world surely would be a better place without a madman like Saddam, let's set an example for our global neighbors: diplomacy, education and tolerance are the answer; violence is not. SETH ASHLEY Columbia, Mo.

How many more Sept. 11s must we endure before we finally take the fight to the terrorists? Isn't the U.S. the most powerful nation in the world? If ever there was justification for the use of power, the fight to end terrorism is it. JEFFREY BASFORD Poway, Calif.

We had damned well better be ready for war, because we've been at war since September 2001. This war is different from any we have fought before, and the politically correct will never like it. It has overt and covert operations, some of which will be pre-emptive. Soldiers will die, some by enemy fire and some by friendly fire. Innocent civilians will be killed. This war will be long, and we had better keep the resolve that we will need to see it through. It's not nice, but it is necessary. DAVID C. MORTENSEN Pocatello, Idaho

President Bush's plan to attack Iraq is a shrewd political maneuver designed to change the target of the war on terrorism from the cunning, elusive and charismatic bin Laden to the oppressive, lackluster and immobile Saddam. This new focus provides a cover for our failure to catch the real terrorist leaders. JOEL RETT Olympia, Wash.

If the U.S. can assault a nation based on the speculation that it might one day acquire weapons of mass destruction, why shouldn't India open fire on Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons today? Starting a war with Iraq is simple. The consequences are not. JOHN NUNES Milton, Mass.

As a combat veteran, I believe that if we do not go after Saddam, we will one day face a weapon of mass destruction from Iraq in our homeland. We need to take the initiative, with or without international support. I was in Hiroshima in 1950, and there the horror was visible five years after the bombing. We don't ever want to see that in this country. It would make the destruction of the World Trade Center look like a church picnic. ANDY EMERY San Marcos, Calif.

The World Nervously Watches

After Sept. 11, America had moral authority and international support as well as military might. If it acts against Iraq without U.N. backing [Special Report, Sept. 16], the U.S. would undermine not just itself but also the central pillar of world order since the last world war. It would polarize the globe into Arab vs. non-Arab while rendering impotent the only organization that might prevent a division that would provide the basis for the next, and final, global conflict. RICHARD THOMAS Bexhill-on-Sea, England

As shocked as I was by the mindless, horrible events of Sept. 11, I would nonetheless like to urge the Bush Administration to tread very, very carefully. Most of the world's Muslims do not understand the American ideas of democracy and capitalism. America has been portrayed as an enemy to them. It is therefore extremely important that the U.S. win the confidence of the Islamic countries and provide concrete proof against Iraq before attacking. Bin Laden wants to turn all Muslims against the U.S. America must not let this happen. ANKITA SRIVASTAVA Allahabad, India

America is getting a little carried away with all this talk of a pre-emptive strike. A superpower it may be, but omnipotent it is not, as 19 young men proved on Sept. 11. Bush would do well to dwell on that. He is starting a vicious cycle that America will find hard to end. KHWAJA ABDUL WAHEED Lahore, Pakistan

I don't believe for one minute that the U.S. government wants to go after Iraq for the reasons it is giving. The real reason is oil, and once Saddam has been ousted, he will be replaced by a puppet. The evil that Americans are looking for is in their own country. It is called greed. SUZANNE SAUVE St. Adolphe d'Howard, Que.

Ten Australians were killed in the Sept. 11 attack, and Australians feel a bond with citizens of the U.S., especially on the anniversary of that day. The Twin Towers can be rebuilt, but lives can never be brought back. The U.S. is right to take action against Iraq to ensure that terrorists cannot do it again. TOM MINCHIN Melbourne

Look for Reasons Why

Senator John McCain wrote about the need for a regime change in Iraq [ESSAY, Sept. 9]. He supports a war against Iraq in the name of a crusade for democracy and liberty. But the U.S. and other Western countries get along very well with many nondemocratic governments all over the world, so long as they buy America's products and sell us cheap raw materials. In the supposedly irrational hatred of the West, there is some rationality, and it is a pity that this side of the story is not noted by McCain. We care for our well-being and our liberty, but do we care for the well-being and liberty of others? There is more than just a perverted interpretation of Islam to explain the hatred of America and the West in many parts of the world. JEAN VALLET Canmore, Alta.

Anger at the U.S.

In your article on Pakistani teen Sana Shaha [11 Lives: The Muslim Teen, Sept. 9], she noted she is angry at the U.S. for its treatment of Muslims since Sept. 11. I agree with her. I lived in California for a few years, and my view toward America used to be very positive. But now that I'm back home in Dubai, my ideas of America and its global bullying have changed. The magnitude of the attacks of Sept. 11 does not compare with what the U.S. did during the Vietnam War. There should be a power higher than the U.S. to set the rules and ensure that everyone is following them. RAKAN AL-ARDHI Dubai, U.A.E.

Children like Sana Shah are well educated and do not have many of the hardened hatreds that some of us adults have. It was courageous of her to give an interview. Even though I am not a Muslim, I feel the reason for a lot of anger at the U.S. from the Muslim world is that the U.S. is guilty of what it accuses its enemies of doing. Americans have little interest in cultures besides their own and make little effort to understand others. MANEK SHERGILL London

Pyramid Scheme

Thanks for the excellent article on the mystery of King Tut's death 3,300 years ago [Archaeology, Sept. 16]. The new research only confirms what some Egyptologists have long believed: King Tutankhamen was murdered so that Ay, his Prime Minister, could take over the throne. Ay was in on the conspiracy, but the real driving force behind the assassination was Tut's military commander, Horemheb. He was in charge of the army that held Egypt together for many years. He didn't care who was Pharaoh, so long as the ruler supported him. Finally, after Ay died, Horemheb stepped in and became Pharaoh. He then claimed that he had actually ruled during the reigns of Akhenaten, Smenkhkare, Tutankhamen and Ay. That says something. The military took out King Tut. ED STRAUSS Maple Ridge, B.C.

Hunky Hero

I was struck by the picture of the U.S. special-forces bodyguard in the aftermath of the foiled attempt to assassinate Afghan President Hamid Karzai [Notebook, Sept. 16]. The soldier's assault rifle, sidearm, hand grenade and Dockers-brand slacks brought to mind two thoughts: tough gig and, as the Dockers slogan puts it, nice pants. Ronald B. Adams II Dallas

Are all the U.S. special-forces men gorgeous or just the ones on President Karzai's security detail? NANCY CUNNINGHAM Dallas

Is Anybody O.K.?

I appreciated Walter Kirn's commentary on the trend of designating everyday problems as new mental disorders [Essay, Sept. 16]. As he so aptly noted, in Grandma's time such "diseases" did not require psychiatric categories and treatment. We knew how to handle ourselves and weren't looking to label everything--or make someone else responsible for our condition. JOANNE FORSYTHE Plaistow, N.H.

Kirn's article was derogatory to the entire field of psychiatry. The past few decades have witnessed great strides in the area of understanding and treating mental illness. The reduction of suffering and dysfunction has been immeasurable. The stigma of mental illness has slowly diminished, owing in part to efforts of the popular press. This article can only serve to turn back the clock on such gains. The diagnosis of Relational Disorders may be worthy of debate, but Kirn's characterizing various scientifically validated diseases such as Panic Disorder as "jitters" is a sign of ignorance. Such a biased and potentially damaging Essay is worse than ignorant; it is plain irresponsible. ERIC JON HEIDENREICH, M.D. Twin Falls, Idaho

If the psychiatrists get their way, no one on the planet will be without a diagnosis or without a prescription. Welcome to the brave new world. ALICE PERO La Canada, Calif.

There are many different contributions psychiatry has made to understanding the difficulties people have in their relationships with others. We can go beyond what Grandmother and Grandfather intuitively knew (that people can drive one another crazy) and perhaps find tools to solve such difficulties as those experienced by couples, families, employers and employees, religious groups, gangs and even nations. The goal of solving these problems is worth the effort. SHELDON H. KARDENER, M.D. Clinical Professor of Psychiatry UCLA Los Angeles

Planet in Peril

Re your "Green Century" special issue [Special Report, Aug. 26]: I was born and raised in the tropical forests of Nigeria. I remember going to farm with my father during school vacations. How I loved the enchanting wildness of the forest--the giant trees that reached to the heavens; the antelopes, deer, pigs and monkeys; and especially the small waterfall that cascaded down through ancient rocks. It was as if all the birds of the earth went there to splash and drink fresh water. Some 15 years later, I went back to those roots. Alas! The land had been destroyed for slash-and-burn farming and lumber harvesting. Even my beautiful small waterfall was gone. I wondered where the birds had gone. Were they dead? I can only conclude that the Johannesburg 2002 summit on sustainable development will soon be nothing but a historical footnote, just like Stockholm 1982 and Rio 1992. VICTOR OSA-ASEMOTA Madrid

No Females on the Fairway?

As a fairly moderate, reasonable person, I was not at first insulted by the Augusta National Golf Club's decision not to admit women members. However, after reading "Getting Teed Off" [Business, Sept. 16], I changed my mind. The position of the club that gender diversity doesn't carry the same imperative as ethnic or racial diversity is despicable. How nice for the club to be the one to categorize which types of discrimination are acceptable and which are not. Its members display the ignorant beliefs of the white male establishment. They have never been on the other side of such demeaning treatment. STEFANY REEDY Cincinnati, Ohio

Old Stones Still Rock

The excerpt from your 1989 cover story on the Rolling Stones suggested that members of the rock group may have been past their prime 13 years ago when they went on their Steel Wheels tour [Notebook, Sept. 16]. I take issue with your implication that the Stones are even more over the hill now for their Licks tour. The word on the Stones' sold-out Boston concert was that they gave a terrific, high-energy show. They are still the world's greatest rock-'n'-roll band. DAVE VALLAR Marquette, Mich.