In Matthew Grauman's letter of April 16, he states he is anti-war, yet supports the troops. This is a mantra that has been echoed by the 15 or so percent of Americans who oppose the war, but don't want to look like total Anti-Americans, so they throw in this thing about supporting the troops. How can you support the troops in a war you oppose? Supporting the troops is irrelevant; the real question is, "Do you support U.S. victory in Iraq?" If you oppose victory, you can't support the troops to fight a war you want them to lose!
Next he complains about the war on terrorism. He says that no weapons of mass destruction exist in Iraq, although we've found essentially an underground city that houses several nuclear facilities, among other weapons found.
Another problem I had is that he says the troops failed because we haven't found bin Laden. Well, there's a dirty little secret you never hear from the media: The original intention of the war on terrorism was not to find Osama at all! The original intention was to weed out terrorism wherever it may lurk. It might have been a sub-goal, but the intention isn't to find bin Laden.
He also complains that there is no leadership in the war. If there's no leadership in the war, then what about President Bush? Dick Cheney? Donald Rumsfeld? Paul Wolfowitz? I guess these people are all sitting around playing checkers all day.
I support the troops. I also support the war itself and U.S. victory. Saddam Hussein must go.