I did not intend to continue a dialogue with Mr. Hoffman concerning the war in Iraq until I noted in one of his later paragraphs in his letter to the editor of Nov. 8, that I was among those being referred to as “hypocritical” regarding the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.

Using one of the more effective retorts of a true conservative and foreign policy realist, President Ronald Reagan, all I can say of Mr. Hoffman is, “There he goes again!”

Having earlier been alluded to in previous letters by Mr. Hoffman as “unpatriotic” and “in bed with the terrorists” I am now , per Mr. Hoffman, a hypocrite.

If one can be described as a hypocrite for having advocated a massive infusion of American and allied military power, on the order of 500,000 troops, into Afghanistan and, in addition to staying until Osama Bin Laden was killed or captured, providing the infrastructure for a truly democratic and self-sufficient Afghanistan, I am guilty as charged.

Further, if one can be referred to as hypocritical for being suspicious and outspoken of the Bush administration’s run-up to a preconceived invasion, and subsequent woefully inept occupation, of Iraq starting in August 2002, I am guilty as charged.

Now, along with Misters Carter and Robinson, I am further accused of not answering Mr. Hoffman’s inquiry, which I truly do not recall, regarding the issue of an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Although his query should have been directed to the Bush administration before March 2003, maybe he can assist me in shedding light on the following. Within the past week all of the news media have covered the al Qaeda announcement that they currently have 12,000 combatants in Iraq; the U.S. (150,000) and the Iraqi military (310,000) now have a total of 460,000 combatants. This is roughly a 39 to 1 ratio against the al Qaeda forces.

Still with this preponderance of force a solid, effective and functioning Iraq government cannot be established and al Qaeda neutralized. There must some other factor.

How about Mr. Hoffman defining for me just who it is who are killing our service members and precluding the establishment of an effective Iraqi national government? Surely, it cannot be only 12,000 al Qaeda fighters. Should we, the U.S. military, be backing the Sunni armed militants against the Shiite militants or is it vice versa? Should we destroy the Mahdi militia of the Shiite cleric Al Sadr? Or should we align ourselves with the forces of Al Sadr against the other non-Mahdi militia forces? Should we have some sort of bizarre lottery to determine just which militias we back and which we destroy? How about defining just who are the “good” Iraqis and who are the “bad” Iraqis?

In other words, Mr. Hoffman, just who is the enemy whom we are fighting? And, if these various and sundry “evildoer” militias are so hideous and abhorrent, why are they being tolerated by what must be a fairly large segment of the Iraqi population of 26 million?

Could it be, as most Iraqi polls indicate, that our totally ineffective administration-directed occupation has caused anywhere from 60 percent to 70 percent of the Iraqi population to state that it is time for the American military to leave?

The current administration, now admitting that “staying the course” (a la the final scene in the movie “Thelma and Louise”) has been temporarily supplanted by “full steam ahead”, per VP Cheney, is eagerly awaiting the findings of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Survey Group to provide some respectable exit strategy from Iraq.

Let us all hope that their findings do provide a road map for both an honorable American exit and strong central Iraqi government. It will undoubtedly involve a regional approach, including among others Iran and Syria, and this may be tough for this administration to accept, but, with Rumsfeld about to depart and the American voting public having manifested their displeasure on Nov. 7, who knows what lies ahead?

What fascinates me concerning our Iraq misadventure is the issue of just what have we learned to ensure that we do not have a future “Iraq redux.” Let me suggest the following before we preemptively invade another sovereign nation:

• Never “play at war.” If we are going to call it “war,” mobilize the nation, require national, not just military, sacrifice and fight it as effectively, quickly and uncompromisingly as possible. If taxes must be raised to pay for the military effort, so be it! Do not pass our “credit card” approach to spending on to future generations.

• The Constitution has served this nation well, so continue to follow its precepts. Have Congress debate and then, if decided, declare war. Declarations have a tendency to require any administration, Republican or Democratic, to clearly define just what are our goals. As we have sadly learned from Iraq, getting rid of one despotic leader with no solid plan as to just what is to take his place is a recipe for disaster. We ignore the law of the land, Constitution, at great risk for, if we can ignore its requirements concerning declaring war, we can also ignore its other guarantees, chief among them that of free speech.

• Volunteer armed forces are great at maintaining the peace. As Iraq has shown, wars require greatly expanded armed forces and that may include the dreaded “d” word, the draft. When parents/husbands/wives, etc., realize that their loved ones, be they in the work force or at a college/university, may be subject to mortal combat for indefinite periods, a little more thought may be forthcoming before any preemptive invasions are launched.

• Do not expect our armed forces to be “nation builders.” Armed forces exist to nation-destroy and our military is trained to kill, capture, destroy. Do not confuse teenagers and those in their 20s as to their mission. Nation-building can be supplemented by the military, but must be the responsibility of a civilian agency/department.

• Never “liberate” a nation and then, after “liberation,” have to “win their hearts and minds.” If we should have learned anything from Vietnam, and now Iraq, it is the foregoing.

• Be wary of any administration that is rationalizing its arguments as it rushes into preemptive war.

• Do not fight wars against strictly an ideology and/or a tactic, but against those nations or groups which harbor or manifest those ideologies/tactics. Militaristic communism was represented by the Soviet Union and, as such, could be confronted and, if necessary, fought. Iraq, for all of its shortcomings under Saddam Hussein, was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a military threat to the United States and was staunchly opposed to radical Islamism; will we be able to say the same of a future Iraq?

I will close with a point on which Mr. Hoffman and I totally agree — winning in Iraq is of the utmost importance to this nation. Barring the rather rapid deployment of several hundred thousand additional American troops, which is highly unlikely, I defer to Mr. Hoffman for his plan for “winning.”

It would have been nice if a means or method to accomplish “winning” were developed by the administration sometime prior to March 2003.

Wade J. Williams
Colonel, USA (Ret)
Peachtree City, Ga.