To the editor:

In his speech to the Air Force Academy President Bush likened the “war” on “terror” to both World War II and the Cold War. But until now we have been told that the “war on terror” was “a new kind of war'” justifying pre-emptive attack on Iraq, disregard for the Geneva Conventions, use of torture, even talk of building small-scale nuclear weapons. In other words, all bets are off; it is time to reinvent our views of warfare and human rights because this is a new kind of war.

Now we are told this is actually an old kind of war, equivalent to World War II. That seems very odd, since the administration attributes the present threat to “failed states” while the aggressors in WWII were nation states in the classic sense. We are also told that the “war on terror” is equivalent to the Cold War. But WWII and the Cold War were very different from each other, how can the new situation be like both at the same time, let alone be like them while being new and unprecedented?

Dealing with stateless individuals perpetrating terrorist acts demands different strategies than dealing with Nazi Germany’s armies, which demanded different strategies than dealing with the USSR during the Cold War. Muddling them all together is just going to confuse the issues even more. The administration must articulate policies that will put us in a leadership position in the 21st century, not a muddled ideology that threatens to plunge us back into the early 20th century.

Cynthia Annett,

Oskaloosa