I was a believer in the necessity for invading Iraq and in bringing the country into the “democratic world.” I assumed that in the pacifying process the borders with Iran and Syria would be sealed. Too, I hoped the political wars that we have been waging since WW2 wherein we have insisted on using the absolute minimal number of personal in battle would work. I remember the mantra used during the Vietnam conflict, “over reaction.”

I can’t understand not using overwhelming force to clear an area and then securing the area freed of the enemy. I understand that we had many battles for hills in Vietnam where the troops were withdrawn and the same hills were later attacked again – and vacated.

During the Iraqi conflict the same, in my view, misguided plan has been carried out. For instance, an Iraqi city south of Baghdad (whose name I cannot spell) was cleared of insurgents at the cost of many Marines. Later our troops were pulled out and the insurgents reoccupied the city and I understand hold it today.

Your editorial “Bush Iraq Gamble” makes the same general statement regarding the sending of 21,500 troops into Baghdad to secure that city. Of course, the Iraqis are expected to exert more pressure on the insurgents in Baghdad but we were not able to clear the area before when we had 165,000 troops in Iraq. With this influx of 21,500 I cannot see where this new tactic can work. The insurgents can be killed by the dozens or by the hundreds but the borders with Iran and Syria will still remain open for fresh supplies of militant Muslims to replace the dead.

“Too little, too late” with the numbers of troops in the field is perhaps not fatal. We must wait to see about that. The political equation is even more frightening. Daniel Pipes recognizes three “potentially fatal bugs” that working in tandem with the minimal troop concentrations make for a dire situation for our ultimate success in Iraq and indeed in our fight against the world terrorist. He mentions three great diseases that are inflicting the western nations and the U.S. in particular; pacifism, self hatred, and complacency within the ruling minority.

It is a tragedy that we have come in a complete circle from the military down grade of the Carter administration to the anti-military stance of the Democrat Party that has been the ruling force for the past six years because of an inept Republican leadership that refused or were afraid to lead.

Dr. Norman L. Barrow. Hartford, KY