Moving America's armies
While Sen. John Kerry's call for a U.N. and NATO presence in Iraq may appear reasonable to some ("Kerry wants NATO role in Iraq as a 'last chance to get it right,' " Page 1, May 1), it continues to ignore the elephant in the room, which is the long-term strategy of repositioning American military assets that are no longer welcome in Saudi Arabia or needed in Western Europe to establish a broader Middle East presence.
It would seem that the thinking behind Mr. Kerry's proposal is that if the Americans aren't welcome in their own name, perhaps they'll be accepted under the aegis of NATO or the United Nations. But that ignores the fact that the American people haven't decided that they want their military assets distributed around the globe, that they want bases closed at home so they can be reconstructed in Iraq.
I know I don't. If American principles and business practices are not welcome in their own right, I don't want them supported by our military might.
Given the gravity of this situation, it almost seems that the issues of universal medical care, education and support for our elderly population are, like religion, homophobia and the war on terror, merely distractions from what ought to be front and center in the campaign for the presidential election.
Mr. Kerry needs to be asked: "What are your plans for the long-term positioning of our military assets? Will we bring them home or keep them dispersed around the globe to generate antagonism and resentment?"
MONICA SMITH
Durham, N.H.