Why didn't these visionaries foresee this mess?

Everyone, recall when the seers were blind! You can't help hearing today's seers -- the superabundance of top brass and politicos prognosticating about the horrific consequences that will assuredly proceed from rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq. They speak with such conviction that I find myself listening, believing in the chaos to come.

Then I begin to wonder where these sages were when "pre-emptive" war was being sold. Why could not their vision then penetrate aluminum tubes and mobile laboratories? Was theirs an understandable confusion, between an Iraq predicted to greet our troops with open arms and a place whose people would fire upon us with loaded arms?

Leaders, steadfast in their conviction that it was the right thing, took us there proffering along the way an ever-changing array of justifications for doing so. The mess we will leave has most recently become the rationale for staying.

They're apparently incapable of envisioning an even greater mess, as our troops experience ever-increasing burnout and an indigenous population grows ever more weary of our presence as an invading force. The lessons from recent (the most relevant) history are clear: Sneer at the seers, heed them no more and come home, America.

WILLIAM J. BROWN
Squirrel Hill

---

Ron Paul's foresight

You know the Bush administration has messed up very badly when it makes ultraliberal columnist Maureen Dowd nostalgic for Ronald Reagan ("Old-School Inanity," Sept. 10). Ms. Dowd, in mentioning George W. Bush's failure to pursue Osama bin Laden, wrote, "President Reagan always knew who the foe was."

American forces quickly overthrew the Taliban in Afghanistan. But then resources were diverted from finding bin Laden and destroying al-Qaida to invading Iraq -- on the suspicion that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction, which he might give to terrorists, who might attack the United States with them -- with the hope or fantasy of remaking the Middle East by democratizing Iraq.

There were no WMDs, Iraq is very far from being a stable democracy and bin Laden is still at large. U.S. intervention has been, by almost any measure, a failure. But then, government intervention, domestic or international, seldom works out well.

Mr. Bush, and most of the GOP presidential candidates, believe our government can remake foreign societies, as Democrats believe it can perfect American society. But government's basic functions are to defend the country, preserve order and protect citizens' rights. When it tries to do more, it usually fails, and often makes things even worse.

Of all the presidential candidates, only GOP U.S. Rep. Ron Paul understands this. He opposed the Iraq war from the outset, as an unjustified distraction from defense of America from its real enemies. He recognizes that this war, and the attempt to democratize the Mideast, is just one more failed government program.

THOMAS GILLOOLY
Forest Hills

---

Devoted to service

Thomas A. Daley, who died Saturday ("Former Prosecutor, Long-Distance Runner," Sept. 11), was an institution within the United States attorney's office during his 26 years on the job. When I was first appointed U.S. attorney in 1969, Tom "took me under his wing" to help me learn the ropes in my new job and thereafter became a highly effective partner in many of the major racketeering and corruption cases prosecuted by our office in the 1970s.

A low-key but highly professional practitioner, Tom earned the respect of his colleagues and was a constant source of advice on complicated issues faced by the office. He exemplified the ideal prosecutor in his attention to detail and devotion to duty. Western Pennsylvania was favored by his long career in public service.

DICK THORNBURGH
Washington, D.C.

The writer is a former governor of Pennsylvania and a former U.S. attorney general.

---

Inviting tragedy

It is naive to say Pennsylvania's 31-year-old involuntary commitment law is "as good as it can be" ("Mental Health Law Balances Danger, Rights," Sept. 5). In reality, it isn't even close. The law, passed in 1976, ignores 31 years of advancement in treating mental illnesses. Today we know that some individuals with untreated severe mental illnesses have impaired awareness of their illness, which affects their ability to make informed treatment decisions.

Many states have improved their treatment laws to take these scientific advancements into account. Not Pennsylvania. Its law is one of the strictest in the country.

As a result, those who cannot access treatment voluntarily must hit rock bottom before they can be helped. Treatment is dependent on them first posing a "clear and present danger." This invites tragedy.

Improving the law will not mean "going back to the old days" of committing people on a whim. In New York, 81 percent of program participants said assisted outpatient treatment helped them get and stay well. Plus they experienced 77 percent fewer hospitalizations and 83 percent fewer arrests.

Far too many Pennsylvanians have a loved one who cannot be helped because they aren't yet dangerous. It doesn't have to be that way. Senate Bill 226 would address this problem. It should be passed.

A humane law protects someone's right not to be psychotic. Pennsylvania's law needs to be brought into the 21st century. It's definitely not "as good as it can be."

JOHN SNOOK
Legislative and Policy Counsel
Treatment Advocacy Center
Arlington, Va.

---

No exceptions

The medical argument detailing the dangers of passive smoke is undeniable. Reducing smoking decreases health-care costs, enabling our scant health-care resources to be better utilized. Gov. Ed Rendell's sweeping health-care initiatives, including creating a commission to improve care for patients with chronic diseases and promoting preventive health-care initiatives, further support the need for Pennsylvania to work toward drastically reducing the leading cause of preventable death in the United States.

When the state General Assembly reconvenes on Sept. 17, our representatives are expected to again consider a smoking ban in public places and workplaces. Although these efforts are the most progress ever made on a smoking ban proposal in either chamber, a public smoking ban riddled with exceptions does little to protect workers and patrons from the known health dangers of secondhand smoke. All citizens should have the freedom to enjoy a public environment free of tobacco smoke and its inherent health risks. There should be no exceptions to the public smoking ban for casinos, bars or other establishments. The ban will be most effective if all public places and workplaces in all counties abide by the same rules.

The Allegheny County Medical Society appreciates the hard work of our elected representatives in Pittsburgh and around the commonwealth in making the public smoking ban a priority. We join with our patients in urging our legislators to continue to demonstrate progressive leadership in this significant public health matter by passing the bill without exceptions.

ADAM J. GORDON, M.D.
President-Elect
Allegheny County Medical Society
North Side

---

If our system is broken, how did an illegal get such fine care?

In its Sept. 2 and 9 letters sections, the PG included two letters that extolled the emergency room situation in the United Kingdom and compared it favorably with that in this country. The Sept. 9 writer is "embarrassed" that we don't have a "single-payer health system that provides health coverage for everyone" ("Similarly Impressed"). Also published on Sept. 9 were two letters that rebutted the Sept. 2 letter.

I would like to address this issue from another direction. The Sept. 9 PG also had a front-page story about Guatemalan Juan Carlos Serrano (an assumed name), who is an undocumented (read that "illegal") immigrant who inexplicably walked into the path of a Port Authority light-rail train in 2005 and was severely injured ("Getting to America Only Half the Battle").

I leave the "undocumented immigrant" issue to others. What I write about is that buried in the story is information that Mr. Serrano, despite being undocumented and despite us not having a single-payer system, received heroic emergency room and follow-up care from Mercy Hospital at costs far in excess of those incurred in the U.K. emergency rooms by your writers and without Mercy having any hope of recovering money from Mr. Serrano.

Parenthetically, less than a week ago, and also two years ago, I had to go to the emergency room at Passavant. I was very pleased with my treatment and, while I have insurance, I am convinced that I would have received similar treatment even if I didn't have insurance, at Passavant and elsewhere (just as did Mr. Serrano).

JACK MENNIS
Hampton

---