Letters to the Editor

'Bush's War'

There has been quite a bit of discussion recently about whether or not the war in Iraq should be called a civil war. There's little doubt that the extent of sectarian violence can hardly be considered anything other than a civil war, but this discussion misses the larger point.

Almost four years ago, President Bush decided that U.S. forces needed to start a war in Iraq despite the fact that the weapons inspectors hadn't yet completed their jobs. The president decided he would use the tragedy of 9/11 as an excuse to have America go to war in Iraq despite there being no connection between al-Qaida and Iraq.

Now that President Bush's Iraq policies were largely repudiated by Americans at the polls in November, and now that the bipartisan Iraq Study Group has recommended that troops begin to pull out of Iraq, President Bush has decided that more than 20,000 troops need to be sent to the most dangerous parts of Baghdad.

Yes, Iraq is a civil war and should be called such; but more important, this war should be called "Bush's War," as he alone made the decision to start and continue this tragedy.

Geoffrey Smith

Clovis

  Comments