I couldn’t agree more with the responses being written about some of the questions President Bush has failed to answer in the debates.

However, because he is unable to articulate his thoughts or clarify a concept in a manner that the general population can understand does not mean he is incorrect.

One of the unanswered questions printed in the Reader Feedback section of the Daily asked “Do you honestly believe that opposing the Iraq war is the same as being against the troops on the ground?”

I don’t believe this was the point Bush was trying to harp during the first debate. He attempted to convey that it was a bad idea to have a commander in chief who voted against the war but claims he would see it through.

The problem with John Kerry serving as commander in chief is the loss our soldiers will experience serving under a president who loudly preached against the war.

This circumstance will severely affect one of the most important factors in military action: the will to win.

In a military operation, it is crucial that the soldiers continue fighting because they intend to win. Whether it is victory on the battlefield or achieving internal security in Iraq, they need to believe that their efforts and sacrifices will accomplish the said goal.

It is challenging enough to keep soldiers motivated while fighting the guerillas in Iraq. It is much more difficult to motivate soldiers to keep fighting and risking their lives when you are all the while telling them it is the wrong war.

As educated citizens, we must understand that because Bush is not capable of conveying this concept to an audience during a debate does not mean that he does not understand the importance of the concept himself.

When election time comes, I think it is important to remember that Bush does understand the will to win.

Kerry, on the other hand, does not understand it. If he does, he knows that victory cannot be achieved under his leadership.

Anthony Gertz

Senior

Political Science