I appreciate the regular appearance of David Brooks’ columns in your paper, not always for his views, though, but mostly for his Washington, D.C., insights. I must take issue with most of his latest piece (“War: U.S. enters ‘endgame deadlock,'” The Daily Astorian, July 16).

First, he trivializes what most military experts I’ve studied have proved, by claiming that “ending a war is as complicated as starting one.” History shows conclusively that ending wars, especially while in progress, is more difficult. We cannot let this misstatement discourage us from making every effort to get out of this catastrophe.

Also, Brooks disparages the congressional leadership for relying on politics to shape the marshaling of voting blocks. Political maneuvering is how our system works, and Republicans and Democrats alike have used the same tactics for generations.

Singling out U.S. Sen. Harry Reid for negative attention is not a helpful or informative position to foment. There are plenty of fingers to be pointed at all our political leaders.

Lastly, he goes into great detail listing four issues or questions that confirm his misstatement of exiting a war. His concluding points are well stated and well taken, especially considering that none of these issues or questions were addressed to the American public in the run-up to the war, especially by Brooks or his fellow pundits, left or right.

I also question the wisdom of putting too much faith in the breathlessly anticipated report from Gen. David Petraeus, a man whose boss is George W. Bush, and surely knows who signs his paycheck.

The Bush administration sold us a bushel of lies and is now using columns like Brooks’ to cloak our best move forward in a cloud of fear, when we should not fear to do the right, although damned difficult thing.

R. David Smith

Gearhart