Letters

Are We Stretched Too Thin?

"The U.S. Army is spread not too thin but far too wide. How can any nation be entitled to plant its military in 120 countries?" D. EUGENE LICHTY McPherson, Kans.

The solution to the U.S. military's problem of being overextended lies not in adding more troops [COVER STORY, Sept. 1] but in better planning. If the military "lacks the cleanup crews"--the military police, engineering units and street-by-street peacekeepers needed to occupy whole countries for months if not years--then it shouldn't be making messes in the first place. U.S. troops should be assisted by crews provided by other countries. We must give up our unilateral madness. TOM CIRIL Long Beach, Calif.

I am in the military, stationed at Fort Bragg, N.C. As a husband and father, I do not like to be away. But I have a job to do. Most of us do not complain about it. The bottom line is that soldiers are going to die. We know that, our enemies know it, and it's time the American public understood it. Why should the U.S. just pull out of places that are not totally secure and exactly as we want them to be? We will continue fighting until victory is accomplished. BARTY SORRELLS Fort Bragg, N.C.

I find it appalling that in his interview with TIME, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said we have adequate military forces. That is not true. My husband was injured while blowing up enemy munitions. The doctors recommended that he come home to heal, but the company commander said he couldn't afford to lose him. I don't know where Rumsfeld gets his information, but mine comes from the trenches. The soldiers are saying they have had enough, they want to come home, and they are tired of doing the work of 10 men. The forces are not "adequate." LISA CORDELL Fort Campbell, Ky.

Of course President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld don't want to send more troops to Iraq--certainly not before the national elections next year. They are content to keep sacrificing our people. Let's send Rumsfeld! BOB BERKE Oakland, Calif.

How can you say America conquered Afghanistan and Iraq? In Afghanistan the Taliban still exist, and Osama bin Laden has not been found. In Iraq Saddam Hussein appears to be alive, and the country is a mess. How can you call that conquest? Iraq's ruling regime was removed, but that action has benefited terrorists. Perhaps Bush was too stupid to realize that when he took on Iraq, it wouldn't be an easy task. Would he dare attack North Korea? Never. It is not that the U.S. Army is stretched too thin; it is that Americanism and Bushism are. They are found everywhere. PADDY SINGH New Delhi

Why does our nation, with less than 5% of the world's population, need to have tens of thousands of troops dispersed to the ends of the earth? It is one thing to protect our borders in a defensive manner, as other nations do, but the commitment of U.S. troops around the world has empire written all over it. What, exactly, are we "protecting" in other people's sovereign lands, and why are we so hated for our efforts? MAGGIE K. GREENBRANCH Minneapolis, Minn.

U.S. Armed Forces are the most powerful military ever. America is capable at any time of turning the entire country into a war machine, as we did in World War II. We have the strength in nuclear weapons to destroy the earth many times over. As long as we have that capability, we cannot be stretched too thin, for our true power is not in manpower but in nuclear capacity. Viewed in these terms, we are the best, and it is practically impossible for us to be stretched too thin. DANIEL PRICHARD Savannah, Ga.

Sooner or later the U.S. is going to have to recognize that the invasion of Iraq was the greatest foreign-policy blunder in American history. DARRELL W. BROCK Meridian, Idaho

Until Iraq's infrastructure is secured, an honest assessment of the manpower needed to keep the peace cannot be made. The U.S. must shoulder the responsibility, regardless of the danger. When attacked, our troops must react. The American people and our allies need to see that our nation can maintain authority anywhere in the world. DENNIS WILLIAMS Temple, Texas

A Grievous Loss

The death of U.N. diplomat and humanitarian Sergio Vieira de Mello in the attack on U.N. headquarters in Baghdad was shocking [WORLD, Sept. 1]. Vieira de Mello, the head of the U.N.'s mission in Iraq, was an indefatigable servant of peace. To have the extraordinary life of such an accomplished and refined man so brutally snuffed out is a devastating loss. In his career, Vieira de Mello exemplified all the qualities we value most: selflessness, candor, leadership, compassion and integrity. He inspired trust and showed that an individual can make a difference. The oppressed peoples of the world have lost an eloquent champion. INGA WALTON Melbourne, Australia

Should Allies Pitch In?

In his Commentary "Help Wanted," Charles Krauthammer wrote, "If the world wants [the U.S.] to play God, especially in godforsaken places, it had better help" [ESSAY, Sept. 1]. In fact, the world did not want the U.S. in Iraq. It was Bush who decided the U.S. would play God and remake the government of Iraq--and do it alone. KEITH VAN HOFF San Francisco

Contrary to Krauthammer's thesis, the world does not insist the U.S. play God; America has proclaimed itself God. It has created a mess in Iraq because of a lack of foresight and a failure to learn the lessons of history. The world cannot come to America's rescue now, when at the beginning of the war, the U.S. showed a callous disregard for other countries' views. It is tragic that U.S. and British soldiers and their families have to pay the price for this monumental blunder. BERNADINE SHARMA Stamford, England

In explaining why he thinks America should lean hard on its allies to help out in Iraq, Krauthammer conveniently forgot a major point: the U.S. launched an attack on Iraq on the assumption that it would uncover weapons of mass destruction. None were found. America cannot now put on the freedom cap and say, "Look at us--we are liberating the oppressed." The Administration made its bed in Iraq, and now it must lie in it, paying the price in casualties every day until the U.S. withdraws. If the U.S. is a true liberator, then I am sure the people of Burma and Zimbabwe would love to hear from it. RAYMOND LEGGOTT New York City

Planet of War

As Mars made its closest approach to Earth in 60,000 years [ASTRONOMY, Sept. 1] and I watched from my backyard, it seemed appropriate to contemplate the ancient and seemingly unstoppable need of human beings to wipe out one another. Mars, the Roman god of war, would be reassured to know that people are just as bloodthirsty as ever, accomplishing with suicide bombs and attack helicopters what was once achieved by swords and spears. The next time Mars and Earth brush past each other, almost three centuries from now, either we will have driven ourselves to extinction as a species, or (more optimistically) human colonists will be able to look down from the Martian surface at a prominent blue Earth and marvel at how humankind finally managed to conquer its inner gods of war. ANTHONY SALM Keizer, Ore.

Crux of Controversy

I was surprised to read that Mel Gibson's film The Passion has mostly offended Jewish groups [MOVIES, Sept. 1]. If he were being faithful to the text, surely far more people would be offended because the Bible implicates Judas, the Romans, everyone who has ever sinned and even God in the death of Jesus. With that in mind, it could be tricky to find "an overwhelmingly favorable consensus among people who might be offended," as a movie exec said. But then consensus has never been the point of the story of Jesus' Passion. The Crucifixion has always divided people into those who believe in it as the great saving act of a just and loving God and those who see it differently. Gibson is in trouble not because he has offended some Jewish groups but because the Crucifixion offends liberal sensibilities. NEIL TODMAN Bristol, England

A more intriguing question than who was to blame for Christ's death is what relevance it has for us today. To answer this, people would do well to read the Book before they see the movie. PETER D. LEAVITT LaGrange, Ill.

A Tale of Two Tablets

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore knew that placing the Ten Commandments monument in the rotunda of the state's judicial building was wrong. Otherwise, he wouldn't have felt compelled to sneak around and have it installed during off-hours [LAW, Sept. 1]. His actions disclose his guilt. He should be jailed for breaking the law by disregarding the court order to remove the monument. The U.S. was built upon the premise of separation of church and state in order to preserve freedom of religion. It is ludicrous that someone like Moore, who is assigned to be a protector of the Constitution, does not uphold it. If he does not comply with it, why should anyone else? Moore has the right to live in this country, whatever his personal beliefs, but he does not have the right to undermine the government from within. ROBERTA SEIDMAN Stony Brook, N.Y.

The dispute over the public display of religious monuments is so narrow-minded. As separate as we'd like to believe church and state are, doesn't U.S. currency declare "In God We Trust"? So what's wrong with a religious display in a state judicial building when every American's wallet contains money with a religious motto on it? JENNIFER JOSEPHSEN La Crosse, Wis.