PERSEVERANCE OR PRUDENCE?

In our exchange of views on the war (“No Exit from Iraq?” October 12), Andrew Bacevich writes that “persevering in a misguided war almost always makes things worse,” but he makes the same mistake I criticize, assuming that the United States is fighting the same “misguided war” it was fighting in 2003. There is nothing illogical about believing that toppling Iraq’s previous government may have made life worse for Iraqis, while also believing that preserving the country’s new government against insurgents could now make life better.

Bacevich also writes that “the United States has no obligation to fight on ground that suits its adversaries,” and that “we should fight on our own terms.” If Al Qaeda seeks to establish terrorist bases in Iraq, where else are we going to fight them? Shall we send them an invitation to a place more to our liking?

Bacevich downplays the democratization that is taking place in Iraq, claiming that General David Petraeus does not see this as part of his mission. But Petraeus is the U.S. military commander in Iraq; political support for the Iraqi government is the responsibility of the State Department. Because of American efforts, Iraq now has hundreds of local councils, a multiparty parliament, and a binding constitution, none of which existed five years ago. Rather than being “sleight of hand,” this is the most liberal government that has ever existed in the Arab world.

It is true that the Iraqi government does not adequately perform some vital functions, but this failure is caused primarily by the insurgency. Without the insurgency, the Iraqi government would likely have the functionality of a typical third-world democracy. Bacevich is also right that the Iraqi government is infiltrated with supporters of the Shiite militias, but if the militias are defeated in combat and Iraqis no longer feel the need for them as protection against sectarian violence, these militia supporters will diminish in power. To withdraw support from the Iraqi government and abandon Iraqis to the escalation of violence that would follow its collapse would be cruel and shortsighted. MATTHEW SHADLE,

Dubuque, Iowa

WHY GO QUIETLY?

In his article “Separated Brethren” (September 28), Barry Jay Seltser writes that the Episcopal Church “should offer to withdraw from full membership in the Anglican Communion” and “acknowledge that its actions [the ordination of a gay bishop, limited accommodation of gay marriage], though heartfelt and perhaps prophetic, represent a refusal to accommodate other perspectives in the Anglican Communion.” Seltser claims that this “would be consistent with the way others have taken principled stands that violate established law or custom. Civil-rights leaders were willing to be jailed and punished for violating existing law. They hoped their witness would affirm respect for their opponents and lead to broader social change.”

Actually, the action Seltser recommends would not be at all consistent with the conduct of American civil-rights leaders during the 1960s. Had they done as Seltser urges, there would have been no mass arrests, no police dogs, no shutdowns or boycotts-in short, none of the actions that electrified the nation at the time. Instead, the civil-rights dissidents would have quietly shown up at the jail one day and turned themselves in, acknowledging that their views, though heartfelt and perhaps prophetic, represented a refusal to accommodate other perspectives in the segregated American South.

As we all know, it was by forcing public arrests that the civil-rights movement forced a debate about the status of black people in America. Similarly, it is by forcing the Anglican Communion to expel them over the homosexuality issue that the Episcopalians will force a debate about the status of homosexuals in the Communion and, albeit indirectly, about the social status of homosexuals in Africa, where culturally entrenched homophobia has cost millions of lives in the ongoing AIDS crisis. “Going quietly,” as Seltser recommends, could have no such effect.

JACK MILES

Irvine, Calif.

THE AUTHOR REPLIES

Jack Miles’s letter reminds us of the hazards of analogies. In mentioning civil-rights leaders, I was invoking the principle that those who hold prophetic positions ought to acknowledge the rights of their opponents to enforce sanctions against them. They should also be willing to submit to such sanctions in the hope of a future change of heart on the part of their opponents.

For both the civil-rights and the antiwar movements, tactical nonviolence-and the very violent response it often provoked-helped convince many Americans to support the protesters. In the current situation, there is no analogy to the clubs and dogs that galvanized public sentiment in favor of the civil-rights movement. Formal exclusion of the American church is unlikely to generate sympathy or change minds among Anglican provinces that oppose the American position. Bishops are not going to be beaten or martyred, and the presiding bishop is not going to languish in prison. The only result will be to make each side more certain about its right to go its own way-by definition, the essence of schism. That’s why a forceful and clear withdrawal by the Episcopal Church now would be more appropriate than waiting for a possible expulsion. Such an action would not be “quiet,” and it would probably receive a more favorable response from the public than the decision to wait until the Episcopal Church is thrown out of the Anglican Communion. BARRY SELTSER

Boston, Mass.

WHO LEFT WHOM?

Barry Seltser’s excellent summary of the conflict roiling the Episcopal Church and the whole Anglican Communion reminds me of the familiar story of the seaman on the Titanic who, when asked why he had left his sinking ship, replied “I didn’t leave the ship, the ship left me.” He didn’t ask pardon. True, the Anglican Communion is not about to sink. But it is not we Episcopalians who have disowned it. On the contrary, many Episcopalians hope to be members of the first orthodox Christian communion to acknowledge the full equality of gay people with all other Christians. For the Episcopal Church to accept the proposal that it will act henceforth in a merely “associated role” might be an act of humility, but it sounds to me like waffling. May we also remind those who seek compromise that in the first half of the nineteenth century the Episcopal Church maintained its unity by opposing the abolition of slavery? Justice ought to be a prime concern of all Christians.

STAN LEAVY

Hamden, Conn.