Creative, peaceful solutions can bring a better payoff
I am writing in response to Jack Kelly's April 13 article, "How the Bold Run to Baghdad Paid Off." In my view, Kelly's article represents the sort of bandwagon journalism that invariably prevails in times of war, with questions of whether we should have fought completely obscured by assessments of how we fought.
The headline submits that the rapid run on Baghdad "paid off." But one will agree only if one assumes that war was inevitable. If one feels otherwise, the "payoff" is considerably less certain.
Does the payoff lie in having set "the world's record for the most rapid armored advance"? If the record book is one's goal, there is many a Third World nation the United States could conquer much more quickly than Iraq.
Does it lie in the fact that "Baghdad was seized . . . with so little loss of life"? If Iraqi life counts -- as some of us suppose it does -- then the loss was anything but little, particularly when one considers that the tally would have been zero had we not invaded Iraq at all.
Does it lie in the vindication of the war plan after a few days of "savage criticism"? The military outcome of this war was never in doubt, and even the criticism leveled against the plan was premised on the belief that war was inevitable and the only possible debate tactical.
Kelly concludes that "from a strictly military point of view, it is hard to argue with a three-week drive that brought down a regime and caused a sizable military machine to collapse." What is frightening is that so many in this nation -- public, politicians and media alike -- are incapable of imagining solutions to international conflict that transcend the "strictly military" definition of payoff.
JOSHUA DAVID BELLIN
Park Place
The best instrument
Amy A. Langham's April 13 Forum commentary supports the potential role of the United Nations in rebuilding Iraq ("How to Wage the Peace: A Strong Role for the United Nations Will Bring Some Sorely Needed Legitimacy"). President Bush and his advisers favor the Pentagon, rather than the State Department, controlling the rebuilding. If the State Department is in charge, it will most likely include the United Nations. If the Pentagon is in charge, we will most likely go it alone.
Imperfect as the United Nations has shown itself to be, it is, in fact, our best instrument for coordinating and administering humanitarian services. It is also probably our best chance for helping Iraq establish a government that can be accepted by a majority of the people.
Whatever the American media may report, the probability is that there are many in Iraq who would gladly frustrate the American military in its process of rebuilding their nation. We have not eliminated those factions. Unless we killed all of them in the war, which is not likely, they are still there and would gladly, I am sure, inflame those who are surviving victims of "collateral damage."
The military has its area of expertise. Diplomacy and nation building are not its strong points. Having the military control the country it has just invaded turns the U.S. military into an "army of occupation," something the president has repeatedly expressed an aversion to.
VIRGINIA M. SHAR
Coraopolis
Extremist distortions
I'm responding to the April 13 Forum piece "Bible Brigade: Will Franklin Graham Destabilize Iraq?" by Michelle Cottle of The New Republic. With regard to Franklin Graham's statements about Islam being evil, wicked and violent and that Muslims' God is not his God: I don't fully understand Mr. Graham's thoughts about the Muslim faith. If he would like an example of somebody who imitated Jesus, he might look at Mother Teresa of Calcutta. She took care of all of God's children as if they were Christ himself. She proclaimed the Gospel with her life and the people understood her faith.
Mr. Graham speaks of the violence in the Koran, but there is also violence in the Old Testament of the Bible. They stoned to death adulterers, and the Prophet Samuel gave a message from God to King Saul to attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything including men, women, children, infants and cattle. There are many more examples of violence as well as God's mercy and kindness. But in the New Testament, Jesus says love your enemies and blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called the children of God.
So the God of Abraham, the great patriarch, is the shared ancestor of the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims. Abraham is history's first monotheist. But sometimes the truth we proclaim gets distorted by extremists who take scripture out of context for their own agenda.
WILL KROBOT
Bridgeville
The true outrage
I read the April 16 article wherein American Muslims are said to be outraged that Franklin Graham, a critic of Islam, was engaged to speak at the Good Friday prayer service at the Pentagon ("Muslims Oppose Graham's Pentagon Appearance"), and I have a question: Where has the outrage of these Muslims been when the extremists of their own religion have engaged in various acts of terrorism? Why have they (the Muslims here in America) been so silent? That to me is the true outrage.
JIM O'BRIEN
Franklin
For the record
For someone who does not share my views, Dennis Roddy's column on our encounter in Pittsburgh was fair-minded and generous ("Still a Heavy Hitter in Politics, But He No Longers Bats Left," April 20). However, I would like to make two emendations.
I did say that Democrats were Pittsburgh's problem, but I explained that this was because their high taxes and regulations drove businesses away.
Roddy's presentation of my remarks about Dick Scaife could be misinterpreted. For the record, Dick Scaife is one of Pittsburgh's greatest citizens, whose charities have benefited hundreds of thousands of Americans.
As an American patriot, Dick Scaife has been unfairly demonized by the nation's liberal press. My reference to McCarthy-like attacks referred to the attacks on Dick Scaife as well as myself.
DAVID HOROWITZ
Los Angeles, Calif.
What about students?
Thanks for the "enlightening" front-page article on Pittsburgh Board of Public Education President Darlene Harris ("Is School Board Chief Its Conscience or Just a Nitpicker?" April 13). The article made just a passing reference to the upcoming school board election. And, as an informed voter, I nearly got dizzy from the article's many interesting spins.
Mrs. Harris claims that people inside the district are afraid of Superintendent John Thompson. Virtually every teacher I've spoken with during this campaign supports her opponent, Patrick Dowd, but those teachers are afraid to speak publicly out of fear of retaliation. Mrs. Harris is our self-proclaimed "fiscal watchdog," yet orchestrates the re-opening of schools that are drastically under capacity and contributes to forcing our tax dollars to be spent on school board retreats. It seems Mrs. Harris demands accountability from everyone but herself.
Although our public school system needs leadership to create a vision and a plan for the future of our children, Mrs. Harris is focusing our attention on "critical" issues like car mileage expenses and how much should be spent on sandwiches. Mrs. Harris has done more to destroy the reputation and morale of the Pittsburgh Public Schools than anyone could have imagined. Just ask the leaders of the foundation community who pulled millions of dollars from our children last year. Mrs. Harris was vice president of the board at that time. How can a board president demand accountability when she continually stonewalls anyone who does not agree with her?
The most telling part of the article was that there wasn't a big section on student achievement. But that's not surprising. Mrs. Harris doesn't talk about student achievement. She is too busy with micromanaging the school district and trying to make the administration look bad.
If you like the way our current Pittsburgh school board is operating, then vote for Darlene Harris. If you do not care about student achievement, support Darlene Harris. If you think our public school system should continue to be micromanaged, vote for Darlene Harris. But if you want someone who can be responsible with your tax dollars while working constructively for an improved public school system by focusing on student achievement, then join the growing coalition to elect Patrick Dowd on May 20.
SUSAN COHEN
Stanton Heights
Tavern owners deserve a piece of the action
Gov. Ed Rendell's recent efforts to legalize slot machines in Pennsylvania are long overdue ("Jockeying on Slots Money Starts," April 21)! But why give the opportunity to large corporations that own the racetracks? What about the local tavern owners and vendors who have had to suffer years of Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board harassment?
As a former tavern owner, I was always in wonder that the city of Pittsburgh would settle for a trivial $150 a year licensing fee for video poker machines. It could split the proceeds and fund badly needed local projects, increase tax revenue and spur a flat economy.
Instead it chooses to stage ridiculous raids that embarrass patrons and owners, take enforcement personnel off other important duties and ignore funds that would have paid for any stadium it desired.
The equipment is already in place, a simple telephone line, which the state already uses for its own legalized gambling machines -- the lottery machines.
GEORGE WOJTKOWSKI
Sharpsburg
E-mail this story 
