Charlotte, N.C.

Several years ago, the Bush Administration had “bring it on” mentality in dealing with the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, the North Koreans, Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas.

Only after dealing directly with the insurgents and North Korean dictator, there are some dramatic improvements. Negotiations with Hezbollah ended the Lebanon War. We started recently talking with Iran and they let the nuclear inspectors back.

Everybody agrees that the Palestinian problem is essential to stabilization of the Middle East, but President Bush refuses to talk with Hamas, who won the recent democratic elections.

It is impossible to solve any problem without communication. Unfortunately, the White House wasted almost full two terms by refusing to deal with the legitimate Palestinian representatives.

Bush’s strategy in dealing with the Palestinian problem is highly ineffective. He wants everything immediately.

It would be far more productive approach to tackle a problem step-by-step starting with the topic that everybody is in agreement.

All sides agree that the Palestinian state is long time overdue, so let’s create it. Once created and being instrumental in boosting up the Palestinian economy and making the people productive, employed and capable to provide for their families, there are more chances, more time (and less pressure) for constructive debate regarding the rights of the Palestinian refugees to return.

If the first two goals are achieved, Hamas’s recognition of Israel is absolutely irrelevant for the first two steps should solve all the problems.

If three-fourths of the Palestinian state income were coming from dealing with Israel, why would anybody want to destroy it?

The friendlier we are toward Hamas, the friendlier it will be toward us.

Hasn’t exactly same thing happened in dealing with Fatah and Abbas?

Trust can only be built step-by-step. It can not be built overnight.

Bush's expectation that he can make any nation in the world admit publicly it was wrong is highly ineffective and undiplomatic strategy.

Mr. Abbas did it in Palestine and he instantly lost the elections. Mr. Alawi endorsed the foreign occupation of Iraq and got only several percent of votes in Iraqi elections. Mr. Maliki got too cozy with Bush and lost his ability to lead the Iraqis.

If President Bush really wants to build up strategic relations with the Arab world, he has to be extremely aware of their national pride.

Any of Bush’s Arab partners who loses the respect of his countrymen is more or less useless.

Any of Bush’s Arab partners who is forced to bend too much is definitely broken.

The same thing happened even to Mr. Blair, although Britain is traditionally our staunchest ally.

Kenan Porobic
07/19/2007 @ 4:55pm

Seattle, Wash.

What most people who have never had to fight in a war do not realize is that this is the natural outcome of war and of sending young men into war. Fear is a very powerful thing. It drives your actions. Men who have been trained to kill on command do just that. It causes those involved into dehumanizing the enemy in order to make the killing process palletable. When the enemy (real and perceived) are not a human beings their deaths can be rationalized much as we rationalize wiping out a wasp nest or eliminating a rodent problem. This dehumanization has been evidenced in every war. In WWII the enemy were the krauts, Vietnam the gooks. When a soldier believes he may die or sees his buddies die (the only human beings that they acknowledge) Fear and frustration take over. A person might do anything he thinks is necessary to save his own life and fear will help him rationalize it.

Think about this, one of the biggest prejudices our law enforcement officers have to overcome before they can actually become community leaders is to get over the feeling that everyone they pass is a potential perp. Soldiers are no different and when you are in a foreign country where the population looks different and speaks a different language with different customs it is easy to fall into the perp outlook.

I place the blame for this dehumanization squarely on the shoulders of the leaders who sent those men into harm's way and to those in the field who lead and train them. The only way to stop these incidents is to rehumanize the enemy. This doesn't sit well with the "leaders." How can you fight a war if you have empathy for your "enemy"? Since George Bush has essentially painted all Muslims with the same brush, an Iraqi is no different than the Saudis who took over those planes on 9/11, therefore all Muslims become perps.

This carnage is no different that that which has happened in the past. If our country was run by former soldiers there would be fewer wars. Because they would understand exactly what war means and because the idea of war would not hold the glamour that it did to those fools who led us where we are now.

Douglas Franz
07/19/2007 @ 3:06pm

Kennebunkport, Maine

When the Russians invaded and occupied Afghanistan, they set up a government to their liking, and had so called elections to justify their chosen rulers. Anyone who was against their rule was labeled as a criminal and terrorist. As a result, the United States government trained and supported Muslim mujahedeen insurgents (jihadists) in their attempt to overthrow the "occupying" power, Russia.

The tactics were simple: shoot, bomb and destroy the enemy so as to drive them out of their homeland. History has now repeated itself, only the names and places have changed and the spin cycle has renamed the sides.

Now the invading occupiers are the United States and the new "insurgents" (jihadists) are Al Qaeda, and Iraqis, yet again they are comprised of the same group--Muslims. And the occupiers are the same, a Western Government under a different name: The United States instead of Russia. And let us not forget that even the United States armies are also engaging in atrocities against innocent Iraqi citizens just as the Russians did.

So what's the difference if this time the country training and supporting these new insurgents is Iran instead of a Western power? The point is that it is the duty of any country's citizens to fight to the last breath in removing any occupying power from their homeland. That is the history of all mankind in all its wars and will not change for the sake of moral charades. Al Qaeda is not the only force trying to removing the American occupiers; Iraqis themselves are also in that pursuit.

So how hypocritical of American leaders and their spin ministers to constantly portray themselves as the "good guys" and Iran as the unholy supporter of terrorists or "insurgents"! I'm sure that Russia was calling the United States the same when Russia occupied and promoted a regime change in Afghanistan. And we saw the result there--a defeat for the Russians, including its once great army, and the start of the decline of the Soviet Union. Nothing will be different this time either except for the name of the defeated.

Bohdan Yuri
07/17/2007 @ 11:28pm

Riverside, Calif.

They had a piece on Nightline Monday night on this very subject, and pictures are worth a thousand words. A reporter for the Guardian followed an American patrol around Baghdad for two week. These troops are facing a fifteen-month tour pulling patrols of six hours on and six hours off. One soldier offered to spend another fifteen months in Iraq if the Administration and Congress would go along with them for the entire time. He complimented them by saying they have the mentality of a 2-year-old, and they do not have a clue about what they are doing in Iraq. I disagree and have always maintained they are idiots. The National Security Guy at the Washington Post says they are thinking about Surge II after September. If that happens, no member of Congress will survive in 2008. I'm ready for some new political parties!

Pervis J. Casey
07/17/2007 @ 3:13pm

Kealakekua, Hawaii

We can see from this very detailed look at the occupation the terrifying effect it has on both soldiers and civilians. We have been engaged in this occupation only a few years. Israel has occupied Palestine for decades.

Think maybe we aren't seeing the whole picture there, either?

Mark Johnson
07/13/2007 @ 7:34pm

Burwell, Nebr.

If terrorism is defined as indiscriminate attacks on defenseless civil populations, it's becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between what US forces are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and what Al Qaeda did on 9/11. This is probably a point that is being taken to heart throughout the Muslim world. Another reason to stop the madness, to borrow a phrase from another generation.

Sam Thornton
07/11/2007 @ 8:58pm