After reading the editorial entitled “Military strategies lack attention” [April 27], I found myself perplexed by logical progression of the article. The first sentence read, “It’s only been four months into President George W. Bush’s administration, and international crises follow one after another.” The obvious insinuation that you made was that the recent international incidents were the result of bad judgment on the part of the current president. Perhaps I missed the logic train here, but you failed to demonstrate a connection at all. Rather, you demonstrated the opposite with “These operations have been going on for quite a while” and “Two Americans died because the Peruvians did not listen.” The U.S.S. Greenville collision, the spy plane collision and the downing of the plane over Peru were certainly not the result of any policy that President Bush decided upon. These accidents stemmed from ongoing military policies that did not originate in the past four months.
You are entitled to your opinions, but I find that you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel by trying to peg the blame for these unfortunate incidents on President Bush. Your biases need not be so blatantly obvious. Try backing up your insinuations with evidence next time.