THE MEDIA has fixated on the "Liberation of Iraq," portraying events signifying American's "victory." Was there ever a doubt that the mightiest military force known to man would not quickly overcome a country whose military, albeit willing, was fighting with outdated equipment and planes that could not withstand the omnipresent AWACS? What was our point? If this was about ensuring Iraqis are fed, clothed, healthy and secure we could have removed the 12 year sanctions. Now, the entire population is still in jeopardy. If it was removing Iraq's WMDs, apparently there aren't any. If it was reducing terrorism, we've fanned the flames of Muslim fundamentalists. If it was about regional instability, that has been increased. If removing Saddam Hussein was the reason for our attack, that could have been done without invading this sovereign albeit brutal country. We've done it often in the past in other countries—even in Iran when we killed their first democratically elected president. Now, there is chaos, clean water shortages, food shortages, hospitals and staff overwhelmed with mostly civilian casualties. We can only hope this "victory" will result in friendship, that we return to diplomacy, allow the UN to oversee the establishment of a new government and from now on adhere to the rules of the UN charter of which we are charter members. Brute force should not be America's answer. We're better than that.

Cathryn Baillie
Issaquah