Cynthia Chase, Laurel, Maryland:
War is awful, and I don't want any more of it. Yet when I read the story of the Iraqi activist who was taken from her home, her husband and three children, and tortured and then killed by these fanatics, I wanted to wipe them off the face of the earth. They are madmen and reason can't touch them. I am sorry that there are so many young men in the Middle East with no jobs and no means of supporting a family, I am sorry for their raging discontent, but what else can be done? God may be silent, but must we be silent as well?
Robert B. Hetler, Suttons Bay, Michigan:
I have to agree with you on your assessment about what the U.S. and its allies need to do regarding ISIL and/or ISIS, and its/their ilk. As oxymoronic as "rules of war" may seem, they must be enforced.
Peter Lawson, Valley Ford, California:
I have been thinking about the essay you posted yesterday, and I have finally have figured out where I think you have gone wrong in your deliberations about our total fiasco in the Middle East. I was born 10 years before you were and remember quite vividly what was happening in Europe from 1939 on. In my childhood and youth there were not only baseball cards, there were war cards that depicted vicious scenes of the carnage of warfare in Manchuria and China during the Japanese invasion. I collected those cards and traded them. I was set up to be conscious of what was happening when Hitler took over Czechoslovakia and Poland and then launched the blitzkrieg on France. I did not know much about the massive slaughter of Jews, but I did know about Hitler's oppression of Jews. In both grade school and junior high school I had several classmates who were Jewish refugees from Germany. These were the kids of families who had managed somehow to get into Switzerland and then finally come to the States. I remember the beginnings of the Lend - Lease program and the increasing discussion about whether or not we should join Britain in their fight against Hitler. I was well aware of another factor in the discussion, namely that there were a large number of German immigrants in my part of the world. Some of them were my neighbors and playmates. So my memory is pretty rich. I can tell you exactly where I was on December 7, 1941. I was at my fifth grade teacher's apartment where I was trying to sell her a TruView stereo optical slide thing. She had the radio on and we heard about the attack on Pearl Harbor. There were two things going on during those years before 1941. One of them was a pure debate about whether was okay to go to war or not. The second was much less in the public view. The United States simply did not have the resources necessary to mount a war effort in Europe or in the Pacific. We didn't have the ships, planes or the manpower between 1939 and 1941. We didn't really have the resources in 1941. It took enormous effort and tremendous dedication to turn our automobile production to Jeeps, tanks, armored vehicles and planes. It took an enormous effort and investment to build hundreds of ships in new production lines set up in places like Sausalito and Richmond, California. The key to our so-called victory in defeating Hitler wasn't anything we did at all. It's not to say that we didn't help, but the real key was the stupid decision on Hitler's part to invade Russia in winter and the incredible courage of the Russians to hold him from taking Moscow. The war against ISIL, or whatever you want to call it, is, as you state, nothing but a gigantic recruitment opportunity for pathologically angry Sunnis. I say, "pathologically angry" because they do not represent all Sunnis. Trying to defeat them by bombing is absurd. The major difference between 1939 - 41 and 2014 is that we have now built up such a massive defense system that there is no use for it except as offense. We must be on offense in order to justify our unconscionable investment in war. I think the solution is to withdraw completely from every part of the Mideast except Israel (and keep Israel dominated in such a way that they cannot use the Bomb). To be honest I wouldn't even do that if it weren't for the fact that Israel has nuclear capability. When I say get out, I mean to get out of Syria, the Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and while we're at it, get out of Libya, Somalia and all of Africa. We need to cut off relationships with them (and with the Shia regime in Baghdad) and then let them sort it out. It will mean that we will have to restrict our trade with those countries, but we can concentrate then on saving the trillions of dollars we are going to spend on armaments and warfare and spend them on our failing infrastructure. I say all this in the hope that you will reconsider your decision that it's time to wage all-out war against ISIL. I hope also that you recognize that I would not take the time to write this and send it to you, if I didn't greatly respect you and count you as a colleague in virtually every significant arena I can imagine.
Blayney Colmore, Jacksonville, Vermont:
I applaud your courage, but I hope you're wrong in comparing the horrifying excesses of Islamist extremists to Hitler's Third Reich. Yes, there come points at which someone must say, "No more." We have expended so much of our capital, human, financial, political in the most profligate and ineffectual ways these past decades that it has become tenuous to believe we might now get it right by declaring war on anyone. But given our cyclical wish to retreat from the world and live in our own den, it is just as likely that ignoring Islamist jihad is as mindless as hurling ordnance into every part of the world that worries us. I can't imagine the burden of having to make decisions when the counsel on both sides must be making their cases. If that sounds like working both sides of the street, it is.
Francis Hobson, Lincoln, Nebraska:
You have quite the fan club here, and many of us agree with your views on many things. I, for one, am experiencing the same conflict your three-part essay of today reveals. I agree that the ISIL thing and how it is handled may determine President Obama's legacy -- for good or ill.
James Boxall, Alexandria, Virginia:
I read your essay today with great interest. For eight years I taught United States history including undergraduate and graduate courses in the history of American foreign relations at the University of Toledo, Southern Methodist University and Oklahoma University. This was a long time ago, 1966-1974, when you and I were both young. Although outside the history profession for the past 40 years, I have attempted to keep up with some of the scholarship regarding American diplomacy. I have always considered myself a realist with regard to foreign affairs. Therefore it will come as no surprise that I agree with your conclusion. We must fight this war against ISIS.
Ron Payne, Milford Center, Ohio:
Bishop Gumbleton may not invite you to his next salon, but I'm guessing that Sam Harris will offer you a front-row seat to his. The battle before us though, isn't merely fanatical, fundie Islam. It is theistic religion in general. Winning that battle probably will not happen much before the nether - world is beneath an ice cap. I think that successfully assaulting the Jericho of supernaturalism will take more than the likes of us tromping round and round it's battlements, horns ablare. Still though, I love the energy and sound of the attack! Keep it up!
Paul Tuthill, Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Thank you Harry. Man is destined to repeat history. Why? Simply because he DOES remember it -- not the opposite. Burke had it totally wrong, with all due respect. Man remembers his group's pride and resentments and its "specialness." His group is therefore the chosen group. He remembers his group's interpretation of what happened back then, aka, history, or his-story. Jesus offered a way out with his forgiveness of debt philosophy, but as yet, takers of this jubilant outlook are few it appears. Still I hope for a better world; not a better past or future. God grant us all religious and ethnic amnesia.
Gary Bernhardt, Portland, Oregon:
I have heard your Bishop Gumbleton speak, and I respect him very, very much. But I think you are right about Option 3: we have to put down such violence-prone groups as ISIL. Civilization depends on it. Thank you for sharing your doubts.
Henrietta Blakely, Beverly Hills, California:
Question? Yes. Doubt? Yes. Caution? Yes. But act we must.
Fred Fenton, Concord, California:
The President, who has seemed weak and vacillating in foreign policy, stood strong and resolute before the General Assembly of the United Nations recently I thought it was one of his best speeches. He said ISIL must be destroyed and made it clear the surrounding Arab nations need to participate in its demise. The hope I see for world peace lies in a strengthened United Nations equipped with a police force that can maintain international order. Your comment on religious headgear points to the basic problem of male ego that keeps nations, including the United States, from seeing the need to submit to international control and the One World as seen by Wendell Willkie.
Tracey Martin, Southfield, Michigan:
Our guiding principle at this semi-perilous time should be "don't do stupid stuff." Ignoring human contributions to climate change is surely the dumbest of things propelling our actions. Intruding ourselves again into the religious wars of other people could be the immediately more brainless. And self-devastating. The Hounds of Hysteria, led by the my-safety-first warriors like John McCain and Lindsay Graham, hope to lead us into the future with bombs and bombast. If calm and insightful reason fail to prevail, we'll repeat the history that has revealed the folly and foolishness of our recent past.
Larry Chevalier, Dearborn, Michigan:
I fully agree with what you say must be done but my heart certainly is not in it. My time on this earth has seen nothing but war. I was born in 1925 and in my mind it started in 1937 with the sinking of the U.S. gunboat Panay on the Yangtze River in China. It seems like there has been continuous war since that time. I wish I had a better outlook.
Michael Fultz, Clarkston, Michigan:
As a disclaimer, I will state that I don't follow world events very much. However, I do see a common thread among all political movements: mindless emotion. Religious politicos use religion, less religious politicos use ideology; logic does not enter the picture, because you cannot get people riled up using logical arguments. You can, however, get them to die for slogans. In the end, what it all amounts to is exploitation. One man dies so that someone else becomes more powerful and wealthier. The poor fool that does the dying is blinded by emotion and cannot see the bigger picture. Whether pounding ISIS into the Stone Age will work remains to be seen, but if ISIS actually got what it wanted, its leaders would be out of a job. Perhaps leaders of these groups are interested more in creating turmoil than accomplishing their goals because it benefits them; all political groups seem to have this in common.
