<strong><span class="subhead">We may need to stay in Iraq</span></strong></p><p>Fifty-eight years ago, June 24, 1950, Secretary of State Dean Acheson called President Truman at his home in Independence to alert him to the invasion of South Korea by North Korea. Because details were sketchy, Acheson advised the president to delay his return to Washington until the next day.</p><p>I happened to be working then as an air traffic controller at the Municipal Airport when Truman met the press before his departure for Washington.</p><p><em>Star</em> reporters were there, but I was the only person with a movie camera. Philip Brooks, director of the Truman Library, appreciated getting my film, since it was the only visual recording of this historic event.</p><p>President Truman obtained U.N. concurrence to send troops to South Korea because Russia at the time was boycotting the Security Council and unable to prevent such action.</p><p>Washington maintains armed forces in South Korea to this day. The fact that there might possibly be the need for such a continuing presence in Iraq is a matter of spirited controversy between John McCain and Barack Obama &#8212; who has criticized McCain for suggesting that circumstances might make this necessary.</p><p><p align="right"><strong>Bill Smith</strong></p> <p align="right"><em>Topeka</em></p> <strong><span class="subhead">&#8216;Flip-flopping&#8217; beats alternative</span></strong></p><p>The newly released report from the Army&#8217;s Combined Arms Center in Fort Leavenworth states:</p><p>&#8220;The military means employed were sufficient to destroy the Saddam regime; they were not sufficient to replace it with the type of nation-state the United States wished to see in its place&#8221; (6/29, A14, &#8220;Army study shines light on occupation of Iraq&#8221;).</p><p>Whatever the final outcome, the first three years of this war will be cited in future war planning classrooms as Exhibit A of how an arrogant, naive political leadership combined with weak-willed generals to nearly sink Operation Iraqi Freedom. It was only a resounding defeat in 2006 that caused Bush to do what even casual observers knew necessary &#8212; fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and dramatically increase troop strength.</p><p>In the face of the Bush administration&#8217;s record of negligent inflexibility, charges of &#8220;flip-flopping&#8221; by the current candidates don&#8217;t seem quite so alarming. Maybe electing someone capable of changing his mind when faced with reality isn&#8217;t so bad a thing.</p><p><p align="right"><strong>Andy Catsimanes</strong></p> <p align="right"><em>Overland Park</em></p> <strong><span class="subhead">Obama&#8217;s qualifications</span></strong></p><p>Jerry Overstreet&#8217;s letter (6/26) questioning Barack Obama&#8217;s qualifications to be president is a fascinating melange of half-truth, insinuation and omission.</p><p>Sen. Obama is a duly elected U.S. senator from Illinois, not a state legislator. Sen. Obama&#8217;s education was financed by a combination of merit and need-based scholarships and loans, the latter recently paid off by him. Nothing nefarious there.</p><p>John McCain received his college degree at taxpayer expense, finishing near the bottom of his class at the U.S. Naval Academy, which he apparently entered on a legacy admission. Not a point in his favor.</p><p>Sen. Obama was a successful neighborhood organizer in Chicago and also taught at the prestigious University of Chicago law school. Real jobs.</p><p>By contrast, Sen. McCain has had a lengthy post-military career in Washington as a U.S senator, again at public expense. In a government so often seemingly far removed from reality, is that a &#8220;real&#8221; job?</p><p>Clearly, Sen. Obama has far more going for him than his strong oratorical skills. Just ask the millions who&#8217;ve voted for him in the primaries and will continue to support him.