To the editor: While scanning the guest editorials of several of the local newspapers I ran across this catchy title written by Karl Stiels. The sentiment was one that everyone would agree with. I personally spent a moment of silence for those who are in harms way, for those who have been injured and those who will never come back from this war. I hope others did also. Once you were drawn in by the catchy title the balance of the column draws you into a dialogue with regard to the war starting with... “how this war was proposed to the American people.” Mr. Stiel suggests he would like to start more dialogue and solicit more opinion. Maybe the reason he cannot satisfy his hunger for open dialogue and opinion is that Karl Stiehls argument is that he wants to go back to the beginning rather than address the present situation, which is, How do we bring this war to an end? Not to say that at some time we don’t need to understand how and why we got to where we are. If we continue to focus, to a distraction, on how we started we cannot spend much time on how we get to an end. The end is our goal isn’t it? ( I believe historians are still arguing how much FOR knew before the Japanese attack in 1941.) Let the historians deal with the beginning and let our dialogue deal with the present. Without going into a larger discussions I think our representatives in Washington (and NJ) tend to stretch the truth to achieve their particular goals. Is it wrong to change your opinion in the face of new evidence? I think not. It is only wrong to be afraid to acknowledge that you have changed your opinion. The fact that you have changed you opinion does not erase what was done before and what continues today. The request for an exit strategy probably has been avoided by the administration because the politicos require they also give an exit date. Anyone who has served can understand that you can determine objectives but the execution and the subsequent disengagement date will be dependent on many factors. The objective has been clearly stated by the administration. To provide for a free Iraqi people. Was that the objective of the majority of the Iraqi people? You can make the argument it was not our business, but isn’t that after the fact? Once we agreed to start, and we did, we have to end it in a manner that will leave the country relatively safe. Iraq was created in turmoil. It is a country of several different factions (Shites, Sunnis and Kurds) which historically did not get along. They were held in check by fear and paternalism. As long as their is friction between the ethnic and religious factions , and they continue to allow outsiders to fight their battles, the objective will not be achieved. It should be apparent that remnants of the previous government are still out there trying to keep the unrest going until they can regain control of the government. We have to believe there will come a time, when the people will have the courage to will rise up, identify the trouble makers and allow the peace process to take hold. It is possible that we, Americans, cannot assist in this process because we do not understand the complexities of these historical rivalries. It is also possible that we will not achieve our objective. I think it is important our objective (strategy) be to help establish basic tools of self government, leave the country with some stability and make our exit. Certainly we will be subject to the scrutiny of history whether we succeed or fail in bringing a democracy to Iraq. I think history will show that we made a courageous stand despite some errors in judgement. That fact would be true in looking back on many phases of our history but it should not deter us from doing the right thing. We witness the nay sayers in congress and recognize them as the being political opportunists. They are eager to point the accusing finger but offering no reasonable alternative. They tend to repeat the same accusations of the past. They prefer someone else be responsible so they can again point the finger. They have committee upon committee and investigation upon investigation and take no responsibility for any action or any result. They blame the administration while they are the “government.” Certainly the citizens of this country need to take a hard look at our representatives and determine if they truly represent our best interests and conduct the business of this country in an unbiased and honest way. Herb Druckman West Milford