I'd like to respond to Frank Childs' (Reader's Forum, May 27) question as to why so many seem to think the war on terror is not really about the war on terror.

First, what does "the war on terror" mean? It is much too vague for me. The more general the term, the more latitude and discretion will be taken.

Since our invasion of Iraq was the least-effective method we could have possibly chosen to protect us against foreign invasion, and because our leaders are not ignorant people, I am suspicious of their real motives. So I ask, what is motivating this administration in continuing a course that they know is counter productive?

What is so compelling that it would induce us to attack a people and country as the aggressor, rather than in self-defense?

Gary Leavitt