Afghanistan

President Obama responded swiftly, decisively and correctly ("Obama taps Petraeus, stays course on war," June 24). What will the critics say now -- that Gen. David Petraeus is not qualified to lead? Why can't Republican leaders give the president credit for a sound decision?

Just once, I'd love to hear bipartisan support for our commander-in-chief. In his address, Obama also reminded all of us that the military chain of command falls under civilian leadership in our democracy. Perhaps Republican leaders across the nation can learn something here -- that we are a federal system of government. Governors and local officials must respect the decisions of the federal government, even when the people elect a president the opposition deems undesirable.

Ever since the 2008 elections, we have heard nothing but the shrill voices of the opposition hoping, and in some cases praying, that the president fails. Well, this president is looking more like other great leaders, such as Presidents Ronald Reagan and Franklin Roosevelt, in that he is able to handle a crisis with a calm and measured approach.

How about it, Republicans? Can you give Obama a thumbs-up just this once?

ERICK HIGHUM, FRIDLEY

• • •

President Obama clearly does not have the same temperament or understanding that President Abraham Lincoln had. Gen. Stanley McChrystal was still useful to the war effort in Afghanistan despite his statements about the Obama administration in general and the president in particular.

Obama should have channeled Lincoln and his ability to ignore personal slights in this important decision. I fear that Obama's decision to fire McChrystal will only harm the war effort.

LANCE IVERSON, HUTCHINSON

• • •

When I was in basic training, we were taught that damaging the chain of command or, worse, materially challenging the authority of an officer over us was a court-martial offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Was I misinformed? Did I miss something important? Or are the laws different for generals like McChrystal? Seems to me he got off very lightly just being relieved of command. Prison would have been the result for virtually anyone in the enlisted ranks.

PETER LAWSON, WHITE Bear Township

• • •

I find it truly absurd that McChrystal would be relieved of his command for expressing his opinion of President Obama and others. An apology would suffice for the comments that offered us a man's honest, candid opinion of the administration for once, instead of the usual starry-eyed view printed by journalists, or the false, politically motivated admiration that is given out by politicians.

By accepting McChrystal's resignation, Obama makes it known that disagreement will cost a person his job, even if that person is about to head up a critical project like the impending Kandahar offensive.

LIZ HUSTAD, EDEN PRAIRIE

Iran has been responsible for the deaths of more of our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan than has any other country or group. It also has supplied personnel to teach the locals to make land mines. Iran has sent personnel to fight with groups in each of the countries and has supplied weapons to be used against our troops. It's also supplied weapons and training to groups like Hezbollah and Hamas that have in the past killed our men and women, such as the 283 Marines killed in the attack in Lebanon.

AL GOLDSTEIN, MINNEAPOLIS

President Obama should stay out of giving advice to European nations about spending cuts ("U.S., E.U. on different paths," June 23).

I question if the phrase "spending cuts" is even in Obama's word bank.

It somehow follows for the biggest-spending president in history, whose policies will lead us to bankruptcy, to advise the European nations to follow suit.

Thanks to some common sense, European leaders are choosing to go the other way and cut spending, and are willing to risk a slight downturn rather than continue on the path down which Obama is trying to lead America.

We can only hope that Washington will soon see the path to destruction we are going down and reverse that headlong route to total destruction of our once world-admired and world-leading economy.

DENNIS MADDEN, Minnetonka

After reading your editorial ("More bad ideas on immigration front," June 23), which detailed how organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union are trying to stop the recently passed laws in Arizona, Missouri and Nebraska, I think it's time the federal government passed laws similar to those of these states.

Why should our country have to change its customs, language and religion to try to please immigrants, legal or otherwise?

This is our country, so let them adapt to our ways. If they can't or don't want to adapt to our ways, let them go back where they came from, where their laws are much more restrictive than ours.

I think it's time we start to think more about rights of legal citizens in America.

WAYNE L. HOWE, SHAKOPEE

• • •

The story "'English only' in Lino Lakes?" (June 24) makes one consider: If the rest of the world decided that automated teller machines and driving were only for people who understood the local languages, tourists from America would be at a serious disadvantage.

LENORE MILLIBERGITY, MINNEAPOLIS