I was pleased to receive an anonymous letter in which the sender subscribed to a solution from Time/CNN Internet letters. I've been asking for solutions from those expressing criticism, so let's appraise Mr. Anonymous' mailing.
I quote: "The idea that the U.S. could help development of democracy in Muslim countries by sending troops, as it did in Iraq, sounds like a strategy Stalin would have used.
"But after World War II, it was economic support provided by the U.S. through the Marshall Plan that saved countries like Italy from becoming Communist states. Bolstering the economies of Muslim countries striving for democracy would have been a better response than exporting war."
First, we now send aid to Muslim countries that we hope are striving to become democratic -- Indonesia, Malaysia, the Palestinians, Pakistan and Lebanon.
Second, after Germany, Japan and Italy surrendered unconditionally we gave them billions of dollars to rehabilitate them. We also gave billions to countries they had occupied.
When the murdering Muslim terrorists surrender unconditionally, we'll help them get back on their feet. Until then, we must destroy them before they destroy us. There is no substitute for total victory in war.
Third, should we give billions to Muslim dictators in hopes of winning them over? In dictatorships we know our foreign aid goes right into pockets of the dictator and his friends.
Fourth, we are already helping in a major way a Muslim country which is striving for democracy. Why do you think over 10 million Iraqis put their lives on the line to vote? They demonstrated they want to be free and can't achieve it without our help.
Frankly, Mr. A., your solution is nave, costly, ineffective and downright thoughtless. Send me another solution, this one didn't cut it!
Monroe M. Diefendorf
More like this story