I am writing in response to Jonathan Brome's completely inappropriate criticism of McKnight's Sept. 17 (column).
First off, it strikes me as amazing Brome would make fun of McKnight using history to support his views. Since when did that become a red light for UNC admissions officials?
What is really amusing is his claim that a U.S. war would have no clear objective in Iraq. He actually states the objective in the last sentence of the seventh paragraph that the purpose is to oust Saddam.
Objectives don't get much clearer than that. Perhaps Brome needs a definition of "oust," which would make me wonder how he was admitted into Carolina rather than McKnight.
He then goes on to say that this lack of (but really his inability to figure out) an objective was why we lost the Vietnam War.
There are several reasons we lost the Vietnam War. Lack of objective is not one of them. We were unfamiliar with the terrain, their combat techniques, and the morale of our troops was low. None of those causes of our defeat would apply to a possible war in Iraq.
We learned the terrain and their combat techniques 10 years ago, and the morale of our troops is still riding high after Sept. 11, 2001.
So, nice try, but history is obviously on McKnight's side.
I agree with Brome that it is very easy for those who would not be fighting to say that we should go ahead with it. However, I think it's easier to ignore the oppression and genocide that Saddam has inflicted on his people for years.
