We're in it now
The situation in Iraq has come increasingly under fire by opponents of the war as another Vietnam-style quagmire — and justifiably so. Our leaders in the White House, as others have pointed out, have lied to and misled us as to the necessity for the invasion; they have arrogantly and wrongly made assumptions regarding the desire of the Iraqi people to be freed of Hussein by the U.S.; and they have bungled the peace through poor planning and execution. Thus we find our troops besieged on an ever-increasing basis with no end in sight, as the President's arbitrary deadline for handing the government of Iraq over to its people approaches. This, if not yet an actual quagmire, is indeed a quagmire in the making.
I have noticed another similarity to the Vietnam conflict that I have not heard anyone talking about. The alleged ideology behind the battle for that country was the so-called domino theory. It held that if we did not stem the tide of communism in Vietnam the remainder of Southeast Asia would soon be swamped by it. In a new twist on that old, flawed theory, the neo-cons submit that if we can install one successful democracy in the Middle East, then others shall surely follow. It would seem that someone(s) didn't hear or understand that those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it.
But there is one big difference between these conflicts that must be taken into consideration. When we gave up the war in Vietnam we risked only humiliation; if we leave the job in Iraq unfinished and unsuccessful we risk unrelenting jihad and unending terrorism. Like it or not, we must not fail in Iraq. So it is imperative that our incompetent incumbent be ousted in order that those who know how to conduct both war and peace can take over, repair the damage done to the U.S.'s credibility, and, hopefully, prevail in the effort to bring some stability to Iraq and the Middle East through a true peace with honor.
—David Carroll
St. Petersburg
Not all conservatives are extremists
John Sugg did as thorough and detailed a job on presenting the views of reconstructionists and adherents of dominion theology as anyone I've ever read in the secular media. It is refreshing to see a report where the writer truly did his homework. Reconstructionism is cause for concern for those who appreciate the intent of our Founding Fathers and their desire to keep God's institutions separate while acknowledging the fact that they do influence each other.
It is important to note that some conveniently categorize all sincere Christian fundamentalists, religious conservatives and conservative evangelicals as "extremists." Such hyperbole only masks or dilutes the real dangers of extremism. By painting the whole of religious conservatives with the broad brush of excess, it is possible to miss the real threat of religious totalitarianism — of any stripe. Sugg was largely successful in avoiding those characterizations and, in fact, noted for the reader that not every conservative Christian is an extremist.
I'm proud to be identified with religious conservative causes. At the same time, I have no desire to be in a position of governmental leadership. For me, it would be a step away from my calling and a step down in my mission. But being a Christian should no more limit my involvement as a citizen than does my being a conservative.
Kudos to John Sugg and the Weekly Planet for examining an interesting topic in a way that informed, provoked and, for the most part, got it right!
—Rev. Dan Burrell
Charlotte, N.C.
CORRECTION
In her review, "The Legacy Lives," of Bern's Steak House, Sara Kennedy gave the restaurant a five-planet rating. Due to editing error, an incorrect rating appeared.
This article appears in Apr 15-21, 2004.