Washingtonville, N.Y.: Your article on “Why we don’t get no respect” was very insightful and at the same time disturbing for me. Clearly (with the exception of Ms. Rice) we don’t seem to have the right players in place regarding our foreign policy. Besides Ms. Rice, who else, if anyone, is making positive progress regarding U.S. foreign policy?
Fareed Zakaria: There are others. Our ambassador in Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, is a smart man in a very difficult job. The National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley, is also a sensible guy. The problem is that because of the power of Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, which percolates because of their henchmen, policies shift only so much. A good part of the blame for all this has to rest with the president, since Cheney and Rumsfeld are influential because he wants them to be.
Pottstown, Pa.: Why must the world be convinced that the admistration’s change in policy toward Iraq and Iran was motivated by a “change of heart” rather than a “change of circumstances”? If circumstances on the ground have finally, if belatedly, persuaded the administration that they must change course, then perhaps this suggests a refreshing realism in foreign policy rather than a blind adherence to ideology (or “heart”). This is a positive development, wouldn’t you agree?
The world’s fear is that if circumstances change again, then Washington will go back to its old ways. That’s why.
Bremerton, Wash.: Why does this administration persist in being the bully and going the way of “Our Way or the Highway?” It’s a cliché, but you can do more with sugar than salt to win friends and influence countries. We need to dialogue with those who we perceive to be at odds with ourselves, not shove them into a corner.
Habit. We’ve come out of 50 years when the United States was so dominant and the rest of the world so weak—plus the Soviet threat was one that many other countries wanted countered—that it’s not easy to change our ways. To be fair, it’s a tough balance to strike for the country that is the world leader. It’s true that sometimes you have to push countries hard to get results, that they will respond to sweet talk by doing nothing, that negotiations for the sake of negotiations are pointless. But it’s increasingly true that other countries will not accept the kind of “leadership” (direction) from the United States unless it is couched in a very different way. If America is unpopular, it means that politicians will not want to be pro-American.
Kansas City, Mo.: Many in both parties seem to oppose Maliki’s offer of amnesty to insurgents who have harmed American troops. How can Iraq end the insurgency and come together without amnesty to the insurgents? Has any country torn apart by civil war ever been able to negotiate peace without offering amnesty? And we didn’t try Confederate soldiers after the end of the Civil War. I think amnesty is necessary for a “good outcome” in Iraq. I think we owe it to Iraq to put aside our passions on the issue and help them achieve that “good outcome.”
You’ve put it exactly right. We have only two options: we either give the people killing American and Iraqi forces an incentive to stop doing it or we kill them all. We’ve been trying the latter course with very poor results. It’s time to try the former.
Chesapeake, Va.: I am a typical American. However, my political stance has changed over the past 6 years. I have gone from a hardcore Republican to an independent, due largely to the ineptness of this administration. I, as well as many people, can see that the Democrats have an excellent opportunity to take a big lead in November. But they must do the same as the Republicans: get on the same sheet of music; get a good slogan and stay with it, no matter what. The same as the Republicans have done over and over. Yesterday someone wrote: “If you like what has/is happening in Iraq, vote Republican. If you want change, vote Democratic.” The entire party should stick with such a mantra, over and over in unison. My question is, why don’t they see, understand and do something like this? I know they aren’t dummies, at least not all of them. But folks like Sen. Joe Lieberman have to get in line or get out.
I think the Bush administration’s policies have pushed many moderates who thought they were conservative into thinking of themselves as liberals, or at least centrists. The president’s poll numbers show a collapse of support for him among registered independents. On the Democrats, they tend to be more disorganized and decentralized than the Republicans. The Republican party is centralized and hierarchical. When Will Rogers was asked his political leanings, he said, “I belong to no organized political association. I’m a Democrat.”
Winchester, Va.: Why should we be more understanding? We have bailed the whole world out since 1945 and all we get is hatred, especially from our supposed allies. I am tired of every country blaming us because we don’t give them all the money they want. I work hard for my money like most Americans, and we are sick of the rest of the world stealing from us (specifically the U.N.).
Well, we can always go it alone. The trouble with doing that though is twofold. First, many problems require other countries’ help. We can’t arrest an Al Qaeda operative in France. We need the French government to cooperate. Second, when you go it alone, if it works, you’ll be fine. But if it fails, you’re alone. No one will help or bail you out. That’s what we’re learning in Iraq.
Salt Lake City, Utah: Does Europe ever make a mistake?
Oh, all the time. And I’ve written about, in particular, French stupidity often. But France is not the world’s superpower. What it does is less relevant to the world than what we do. But, to sound like a parent, “the fact that they’re doing something doesn’t make it OK for us to do the same thing.”
Spring, Texas: What I find fascinating is how little regard most Americans have for the opinion of the Europeans. After their stupidity during the 20th century, why should we care what they think? I don’t and I don’t know anyone out here in the heartland that does either. We should take advice from the sons of Hitler, Mussolini and Franco? Give me a break! Fareed, get over it. We are doing what is right by supporting democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran is next.
I support the idea that spreading democracy will help modernize these countries. But how you do these things matters enormously. Have we spread democracy in Iraq or chaos? If we were to go into Iran, I think we would find a population that while unhappy with its regime, would be far more unhappy with a foreign intervention. You have a healthy pride and respect for your country. Don’t you think other people might feel the same way about theirs?
Lenox, Mass.: In the non-Kurdish areas of Iraq, is the difference between Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims just a religious dispute? Or are there real or perceived ethnic or racial or socio-economic differences? To put the question another way, is the presence of a Sunni obvious in a Shiite neighborhood? Can a Sunni tell (or sense) that an unknown man is a Shiite?
A very good question. No. The name is sometimes a sign but that’s usually it. The Shia are socio-economically (usually) worse off than Sunnis in most Arab countries. There are exceptions. Iraq had many urban Shias who were bankers, lawyers, and high governments officials over the years. The Chalabis were among the most prominent Iraqi families and they are Shias. This is a soft divide, nothing like blacks and whites in America.
New York, N.Y.: On “This Week” you said that we have a commitment to stay in Iraq until things improve. How much longer does the United States have to pay for the massive blunder of the White House bum who did not have the knowledge to make an informed decision, The situation in Iraq is getting worse; to quote John Kerry, cut and run is better than the administration policy of lying and dying. American soldiers are not helping; it is time for them to go.
If you think things are bad now, imagine an Iraq with much, much less security and order. It would mean more militias, a stronger insurgency, and greater chaos. Go to Iraq and you will see that American soldiers are securing airports and oil installations, schools and factories. It’s simply not true that Americans are creating all the problems. The greatest Iraqi complaint against us is not that we’re occupying the country but that we failed to create order, allowed chaos and looting to prevail, and have made their lives worse as a result. The way to make that situation a lot worse would be to leave now. We’ve created the mess. We have an obligation to help fix it.
Valley Forge, Pa.: I’ve worked in the employee benefit field since 1962, primarily on medium size health care plans. A couple of years ago I dug out some numbers that might be interesting to you: From 1962 to 2002 (40 years) the average cost of a good (not great) employee health care plan rose a little more than three times as fast as the rest of the economy. While that’s nothing to be proud of, that rate of increase hasn’t seemed to have the negative effect on our economy that you might expect. Your article in the June 12 NEWSWEEK made me think you might find this interesting.
First, bless you! Your numbers are very interesting. Health care (and education) are the two areas in the economy where costs are rising at two to three times the pace of inflation. That’s because the systems put in place are dysfunctional. The consumer doesn’t pay, the government does but has little purchasing or bargaining power, no rationing is permissible. This can’t go on. In 10 years, healthcare will be 20 percent of American GDP.
