Simply because there are improvement in Iraq does not mean Bush has chosen the best policy
Regarding 'Contrary to media's coverage, there is steady progress in Iraq' (Tue., Nov. 18, 2003):
I doubt there are many people who would disagree that progress is being made in rebuilding Iraq, but this doesn't necessary imply that the United States is performing the job well. Tremendous amounts of American resources are being diverted into Iraq so it should be of little surprise that things are improving. Just imagine what could be done if our own healthcare or education systems were infused with comparable resources.
The question is whether or not the reconstruction of Iraq could be carried our more effectively and efficiently. By choosing to make a series of unilateral actions and refusing to share any power in Iraq's transition government, the Bush administration has garnered the United States great animosity from the international community. This has forced the United States to bear a vast majority of Iraq's reconstruction burden alone.
Furthermore, by acquiring such international ire, the Bush administration has taken a step backwards in the war on terror. Most foreign terrorists out to attack the United States, I believe, are acting against what they perceive as a foreign power attempting to forcefully end their way of life. This misconception, at least in the short term, will only be enhanced if the United States continues to rebuild Iraq alone. The remaining foreign terrorists, who simply wish to spread death and destruction, can only be stopped if the international community bands together and utilizes their police forces cooperatively. Such an effort can only be hampered by the ill will generated by the Bush administration.
When examining the situation in Iraq, I will agree that it is unfair to declare we are losing whenever a setback is reported. However, just because we're not losing doesn't necessarily mean that the current reconstruction policies are best. Instead of accepting these tragedies as part of the price of reconstruction, I feel that the Bush administration needs to reevaluate their plans and develop something better; or at least present an argument on why their current policy is best. Thomas Peng
War in Iraq and regime change was never going to be easy, cheap or universally supported
Regarding 'Letters to the editor' (Tue., Nov. 18, 2003):
Mr. Markovitz explains that he is "very uncomfortable" with respect to the "new status quo" of "the daily slaughter of our peers in Iraq, international outrage with the United States and eerie forecasts of spiraling national debt." Is this the same "Dave Markovitz '06" who explained in the Prince in April that he was "strongly in support" of a "war of ideology" to "[establish] a successful democracy in Iraq . . . as a model for democracy in the Arab world"? Did he really think regime change would be cheap? Or easy? Or that it would sit well with the international lunatic fringe? Joseph Barillari '04
Read More
Keep academic authority in human hands
Lily Halbert-AlexanderThe Trump administration’s attacks on research and higher education as well as a blind reliance on AI chatbots are reflective of a societal backslide: a commodification of knowledge that prioritizes “efficiency” over the messy process of getting to an answer, where nuances are flattened and the truth is fungible.
The Trump administration’s attacks on research and higher education as well as a blind reliance on AI chatbots are reflective of a societal backslide: a commodification of knowledge that prioritizes “efficiency” over the messy process of getting to an answer, where nuances are flattened and the truth is fungible.
What do we owe society for a Princeton education?
Jia Cheng ShenThe social and moral responsibility that comes with receiving a degree subsidized by both private generosity and public trust is significant.
The social and moral responsibility that comes with receiving a degree subsidized by both private generosity and public trust is significant.
Notes from a so-called enemy’s classroom
Jennifer JenningsIt wasn’t revolutionary. It was homework. But it was homework that asked: how do we build schools that work for all kids? Inclusion, after all, is the “I” in DEI. That’s what we’re thinking about together. And caring about each other’s experiences and opportunities, it turns out, isn’t something you can outlaw.
It wasn’t revolutionary. It was homework. But it was homework that asked: how do we build schools that work for all kids? Inclusion, after all, is the “I” in DEI. That’s what we’re thinking about together. And caring about each other’s experiences and opportunities, it turns out, isn’t something you can outlaw.