We're already at war with Iraq. (Letters to the Editor).

Although I find much to agree with in David Cortright's article ("Stop the War Before It Starts," August issue), I think a better title would have been "Stop the Escalation of War Before It Starts." I am concerned about Cortright's reasons for opposing the continued military action in Iraq, namely, that a unilateral war would undermine the war against terrorism. Cortright seems to think that Bush's war against terrorism is a good thing. Although I'm all for holding accountable the terrorists and their co-conspirators who commandeered airplanes and flew them into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon, I rather doubt that the proper way to do so was to bomb and kill civilians in Afghanistan. I'm more inclined to think that the entire "war against terrorism" is misguided and fundamentally immoral. So why should we care if it is undermined? I also wish he had explained what he means by "We should strive to ride the patriotic wave.... "I do not believe that promoting the American Empire is particularly good for the country.

Reece E. Newman Salt Lake City, Utah 

In his article, David Cortright states: "The U.N. Special Commission ... achieved considerable success in dismantling Iraq's weapons during the 1990s, although it ran into relentless resistance from the Baghdad government and was forced to leave the country in December 1998, just ahead of U.S. and British bombing raids." Cortright implies that the Iraqi government forced the U.N. weapons inspectors to leave. This is not correct. The U.N. weapons inspectors chose to leave just ahead of Clinton's bombing raids. By now, even the mainstream commercial media have corrected their inaccurate reporting and no longer say that the Iraqi government forced the U.N. weapons inspectors to leave. I am disappointed that The Progressive contributed to the perpetuation of mythology designed to provide justification for Clinton's decision to bomb Iraq.

Daniel P. Wirt Houston, Texas