Letters to the Editor
cincinnatus
Published Letters: 51 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Perspective
[Read the article: NIE: Conditions bad, prognosis bleak]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'd say the NIE is rather encouraging. Even minimal progress over the next 6-12 months, given the conditions in which we're trying to help create a democratic government, isn't bad.
Consider that it took the United States 14 years to go from revolution through provisional government to a stable democracy. It took us 14 years on a relatively isolated continent with relatively little international interference and with a populace that was, by comparison, uniformly supportive of the efforts to establish the government. Not to mention the fact that the newly formed government was quite similar to the previous form of government.
I understand if you don't think we should be setting up a democracy in Iraq, but since we are, let's realize that it will take a very, very long time. Looking for huge changes and massive transformations in a matter of months in a hostile environment, working with people who are far more factional than we were, and who are being asked to embrace an almost wholely foreign governmental concept is asking too much.
I'm not a fan of this administration, but they're getting far too much flak about the supposed lack of progress in Iraq. That the NIE has this much cautious optimism is a credit to the men and women of our military who have been given a nearly impossible task. Their progress, halting as it is, should be lauded.
-
@jedimaster
[Read the article: NIE: Conditions bad, prognosis bleak]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I thought jedi masters were supposed to be calm and not let their emotions interfere with the force.
I'm not mad at you jedi. You're right. You should let the administration know that you aren't happy with the shoddy way they went to war. You should let them know that they shouldn't tell us it's going to be easy when we knew better.
But that's kind of the point, isn't it? You knew it wasn't going to be easy despite their lies. So why are we surprised or impatient that it's taking awhile to create some stability?
You're also right that creating a democracy wasn't the reason that was given to us. However, that is clearly what we're attempting to do now based on the premise that democracy will bring stability, freedom, etc.
My only point is that you don't have to be trying to deceive somebody to find positive signs in the NIE. Another reader pointed out that it's hard to see the glass as half full when it's broken and leaky (sorry, I can't recall who wrote that). That assessment may well turn out to be accurate, but American men and women are working very hard to make the situation in Iraq better, and I think they deserve to have their successes recognized whether or not they turn out to be fleeting.
As a jedimaster, I'm sure you understand that even if your mind is clouded by fear that someone is mad at you. (I'm not the droid you're looking for.)
-
@bignose
[Read the article: NIE: Conditions bad, prognosis bleak]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The French and Indian War preceded our revolution, and both the War of 1812 and the Alamo happened well after we had established a stable and functioning government. None of these conflicts you mention posed any threat to our burgeoning democracy.
The Marshall Plan is not a good analogy to the situation in Iraq; nobody needed to be pacified to take part in the Marshall Plan. The Marhsall Plan helped rebuild countries who were committed to the rebuilding. In Iraq, factionalism (as well as interference from nearby regimes) is creating conditions that are retarding any rebuilding. Had the Iraqi populace supported our efforts en masse as the people did who were part of the Marshall Plan, I have no doubt we'd see the same level of success.
You are right that we destroyed infrastructure and removed the government in Iraq, but the population was divided long before we got there. They only appeared somewhat homogenous because Saddam Hussein held them together by force.
-
Another Vote for Jaws, But . . .
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Like King and many letter writers, I have always loved Jaworski's analysis. He is one of the best at breaking down the intricacies of the game and making it accessible to the average viewer as well as the fan. It was great to watch him detail the Bengals propensity for throwing outside the numbers and then follow that up with his analysis of the adjustments the Ravens made with their safeties in the second half that effectively stopped the Bengals' earlier success.
However, there was one glaring omission by Jaws. Steve McNair was consistently high with his passes most of the night. He completed a number of them only due to circus catches by his receivers. McNair was also struggling with a pulled groin for most of the game, an injury that finally forced him out. Jaws, a former QB, never commented on the high throws or the connection with the injury. It was particularly clear in the second half that McNair couldn't stride into his throws which caused his passes to sail on him. The cameras had a great replay angle of one late pass that sailed over his receiver's head and out of bounds. The next possession, Kyle Boller took the field. Not one comment from the booth.
As for the double-header, I thought it was great. As an Eastern time zone guy, I got to see the whole Bengals-Ravens slugfest (I've never seen the Bengals hit so hard or be so aggressive on defense in my life) and got to see at least a half of the Cards-Niners game -- two teams I rarely get to see (though there wasn't much to behold on this night).
Good job ESPN. Good job Jaws!