Letter: Iraq ‘victory’ no guarantee of terror’s end

Wednesday, March 21, 2007 | 7:25 a.m.

I'd like to chime in with my thoughts regarding a few issues relating to the Iraq war:

If it's really true that setting a timetable for leaving Iraq is equal to "aiding and abetting the enemy" because it tells the enemy what we're going to do, then why in the hell did we tell the whole damn world about our upcoming "surge" for months ahead of time? I guarantee you that our ancient Greek ancestors are rolling around in their graves at our collective tactical war planning stupidity.

Any current statements being made about slight increases in security or improved conditions since the "surge" began must be weighed against the fact that we telegraphed our "surge" for months. Just as the Apaches in southern Arizona eluded capture by simply avoiding the major cavalry movements of the area, and our own forefathers picked and chose their fights against the Redcoats, doesn't it follow that our enemies in Iraq will simply slip away and avoid our "surge"?

Finally, what's really been driving me nuts is the inane, simplistic, unrealistic argument that is mainly espoused by John McCain but that is also parroted by Fox News and the like: That if we lose in Iraq, our enemies will "follow us home." Well, I aver that our next 9/11 could come from anyone, any group in any country.

The 9/11 attack was not committed by people who "followed us home," but by citizens of our "ally" Saudi Arabia. Victory, stalemate or failure in Iraq all will leave us in a world where any particular group of angry Iraqis could plan and attempt to execute a biblical-scale act of revenge on us. To think that a victory in Iraq would in any way insulate us from such is nothing more than dangerous ignorance.

Bob Coffman, Las Vegas