A ‘Victor’s Disease’?

It is apparent from your hagiography of Tommy Franks that Donald Rumsfeld and his inner circle are in danger of falling prey to the “victor’s disease”: we’ve had an easy victory, so we assume that all our future battles will be just as easy (“The Education of Tommy Franks,” May 19). Yes, General Franks accomplished the mission he was assigned, which is all you can ask of a soldier. But the Iraqi military was poorly led, poorly trained, poorly equipped, poorly motivated, weakened by a decade of sanctions, devoid of air assets and unwilling or unable to use chemical or nuclear weapons. Change any two or three of those parameters and the result would have been much less pleasant. The war in Iraq was not “a whole new war.” It was a battle against an opponent whose incompetence allowed us to get away with a strategy that would have backfired elsewhere. Steve Wallin Phoenix, Arizona

NEWSWEEK is full of the greatness of the U.S. Army. But what has it done? With enormous firepower it attacked a small country exhausted by a decade of sanctions–a country that had no air force, no air defense worth the name, only a demoralized Army armed with outdated weapons in bad repair. The government was not even in full control of its territory and commanded the loyalty of only a fraction of its people. Even a hopelessly incompetent general would have won such an unequal war. So, while Americans congratulate themselves on their military prowess and bravery, to the rest of the world it seems they have proved only their ability to hit someone already down. The victory in Iraq does not tell us how American soldiers would have fared if confronted with a competent, modern army supported by a strong air force and weapons of mass destruction. As for the WMD, the United States and Britain indirectly admit that Saddam no longer had them when they say that it may take a long time to find them. If WMD are not found, the future Iraqi government should be in a position to demand war reparations from the Coalition of the Willing. Finn Thiesen Oslo, Norway

Your articles on what America has been doing in Iraq seem to be infected by the triumphalism of the Rumsfeld Pentagon. In “The Education of Tommy Franks,” the intoxication of conquests has clouded memory and a much-quoted French sentence–“L’audace, l’audace, toujours l’audace!”–has been incorrectly attributed to Napoleon. In fact, it was Georges Jacques Danton who said, in a 1792 speech, “De l’audace, encore de l’audace, et toujours de l’audace.” (“Boldness, more boldness, and perpetual boldness!”) Punyapriya Dasgupta New Delhi, India

Stealing and Selling WMD

As a subscriber of NEWSWEEK since 1963, I have always enjoyed your thoroughly researched and well-written articles. Your journalists take pride in neutrality and objectivity. But when it comes to presenting stories where the United States is involved, you tend to go a long way to accommodate the official version–often without using any critical criteria. A recent example is your May 19 periscope piece “WMD–Looted and Lost?” You describe WMD sites from which tons of partially enriched uranium, highly radioactive materials and industrial isotopes have been stolen and sold in local markets and link them with terrorism and the making of dirty bombs. Everyone knows how hazardous these materials are. They are handled by experts with special gear and clothing. How can looters take away such substances without getting hurt or caught? Then you go on to claim that not finding WMD and proving Saddam’s guilt is almost beside the point. But wasn’t the so-called presence of WMD in Saddam’s hands the only reason for attacking Iraq? We in Europe heard President Bush, Colin Powell and Jack Straw repeatedly using the WMD mantra in the Security Council. Now it does not matter? It’s no wonder that no one listens to America’s lectures on morality anymore. Bashy Quraishy Brussels, Belgium

To avoid the responsibilities of an occupying power, President Bush carefully avoided the term “victory” in declaring that the war was over in Iraq. But that sums up the situation correctly: there’s no victory in Iraq. Saddam managed to escape, looting is widespread, there’s no law and order, a moderate Shiite leader has been murdered (while U.S. commanders say they had not received orders to rescue him) and the first “governor” had to be replaced after a mere month. Worse, we now learn that WMD sites were looted because the Army did not have the time or troops necessary to secure them. This is criminal neglect. It is more likely that WMD material will turn up in the hands of terrorists now than before Saddam was removed from power. Nobody thought of these “side effects” of the war? And if this is still called a successful campaign, what would a failed one look like? Knut Erik Hougen Bergerac, France

In both gulf wars, ammunition containing depleted uranium that causes untold harm was used in Iraq. It qualifies as a WMD, as do cluster bombs. Both are illegal under the terms of the Geneva Conventions and cause untold harm to innocent civilians. Uranium contamination of air, soil and water caused by allied bombardments in 1991 is already responsible for a cancer epidemic in parts of Iraq. The recent bombardment with these nuclear materials will kill many. As for cluster bombs, half the warheads are designed not to explode on impact but to remain strewn around to kill curious children later. The gulf between the pious verbiage of our leaders and their ruthless actions is frightening. Steve Baker Schneverdingen, Germany

A Heavy-Metal Overdose

Some of your recent articles make me worry about what is happening to America. “Cruel and Unusual” (periscope, May 19) tells of “uncooperative Iraqis” being forced to listen to “long doses of heavy-metal music or even popular children’s songs in an effort to convince them not to resist Coalition forces.” They are also being deprived of sleep. Sgt. Mark Hadsell brags about how well this method works. And your caption writer seems to find this funny (“We knew Barney was torture”)? Torture is not funny. The Unit-ed States began this war saying it was to restore human rights in Iraq. Is this the way it is being done? It is sad that the U.S. Army has sunk so low, and it is even more sad if ordinary U.S. citizens think this is all right. Una Margret Jonsdottir Reykjavik, Iceland

The Shiites of Iraq and Iran

Your May 5 article “The Shiite Shock Wave” was insightful about the dilemmas the Iraqi people face in the post-Saddam era. Much attention has been paid to the Kurds and Shiites. But Iraq’s Christians, who were closely associated with the Baath Party regime, have been ignored. In the current power vacuum, Iraq’s Christians have been subject to vicious reprisals from Shi-ites. It’s ironic that a Bible-quoting Christian like Bush ignores the plight of fellow Christians. Julian Phillips Port-Of-Spain, Trinidad

In “The Shiite Shock Wave” you say that “Iran became a bastion of Shiism only as a refuge from the merciless persecution of Iraq’s Shiite majority under the Sunni-dominated regime of Saddam Hussein,” a claim of staggering ignorance. Such a cavalier attitude to basic facts goes a long way toward explaining the current mess in Iraq. Steve Hewitt Paris, France

Recession-Hit McMeals?

You say Germans have boycotted McDonald’s (“Happy Together,” Periscope, May 12). But Jim Cantalupo, chairman of McDonald’s, said “that business in Germany is not as good as before is due to the… recession.” Ironically, what has probably hurt Mc-Donald’s in Germany most is the withdrawal of U.S. troops–the company’s best customers abroad–over the past few years. Walter Deller Hohenschwangau, Germany

Of France, Freedom and Fries

Gersh Kuntzman’s entertaining “Frying the French” (April 14) is another illustration of Americans’ famed attachment to the notion of freedom. Why then can’t so many Americans and the TV networks that shape their opinions start to practice the attitude that goes with freedom: tolerance? Americans should accept the fact that other governments and countries may have different assessments of reality than theirs without their being considered anti-American. They need to understand that being the strongest, militarily speaking, doesn’t necessarily mean being the most perspicacious or the most moral. Norbert-Jo Belloc Nantes, France

France is conscious that America had a lot to do with its liberation in 1944, but does that mean it cannot be allowed to take clear and responsible decisions of its own? Like many French citizens, I still see the United States as a great country. So, I think calling french fries “freedom fries” is as ridiculous as Jose Bove’s acts of vandalism in French McDonald’s a few years ago. Banning the word “French” implies that anything (or anyone) French is anti-freedom and anti-American. Please. Let’s hope all Americans are not anti-French. Dean Fleischer Montpellier, France

Perhaps the reason more enlightened Americans are not participating in the latest farce of Orwellian double-speak is that we know that french fries are, in fact, Belgian. The ignoramuses in Congress and elsewhere responsible for this silliness would be more effective were they to set about rebaptizing Detroit, St. Louis, Baton Rouge and New Orleans. Or why not follow this movement to its logical conclusion and dismantle the most potent French symbol in America, the Statue of Liberty? Mark Humphries Paris, France

I approve of the rechristening of french fries to “freedom” fries: the enemy must be fought with all available means. It is unfortunate that the English language cannot easily be purged of all its French expressions (aide-de-camp, deja vu, maladroit, just to name a few of those I found in the April 14 NEWSWEEK). But there is one scandal that requires immediate action: all these American towns with French names. The easiest to rename might be: French-town (Montana), Frenchman (Nevada), Frenchglen (Oregon). Then there are those that duplicate the names of French cities: Paris (Idaho, Missouri, Texas), Versailles (Indiana), St. Cloud (Minnesota), Macon (Georgia), Montpelier (Idaho) and, of course, New Orleans. Finally, there are those that have unmistakably French names: Bellevue (Idaho, Texas), Belle Fourche (South Dakota), Grand Marais (Minnesota), Fond du Lac (Wisconsin), Baton Rouge (Louisiana). And shame on North Dakota, which glorifies the greatest French general and statesman: Napoleon. Helmut Muller Villiers-Sur-Orge, France

Shame on NEWSWEEK for catering to the lowest instincts of demagoguery and xenophobia by hosting a column that belongs more among the warmongering idiocies of Rupert Murdoch’s publications than in a serious publication proclaiming itself “the international newsmagazine.” This Letter From America is a confirmation that America has become an intolerant country where dissenters (even when they are simply echoing what the overwhelming majority of the world’s countries are saying) are reproached. France is an easy scapegoat at which the United States can vent its frustration since it was unable to garner support for the war of the Bushies and their oil-financed, fundamentalist clique from even such dependent countries as Mexico, Chile, Turkey and Pakistan. Laurent Renevier Paris, France

Congratulations! The Bush Administration and its warmongers have managed to make innocent, peace-loving Americans the most hated people on Earth. Who really cares about french fries? Europe and the rest of the world will keep eating them–along with French wine, french toast, french dressing, french mustard. C. Azarias Athens, Greece

Hello from Freedom (France) country. I’ve just read “Frying the French” and can’t resist this pun: How about “freedom letters”? Too permissive? When spring is in the air, could it lead to too much “freedom”-kissing between men and women? Well, this year, there is nothing to worry about: we “make war, not love.” Name Withheld St. Gildas des Bois, France