Letters: Nov. 26, 2001

In the Hot Seat

Before Sept. 11, many of us would never have believed that George W. Bush had the potential to be more than a mediocre President [WAR ON TWO FRONTS, Nov. 5]. In the days following the tragedy, we watched Bush gradually grow. Yes, he had Cabinet advice and very effective speechwriters, but we have seen his personal leadership evolve. I hope that with continued success against terrorism, Bush will go down in history as one of our greatest Presidents. VIRGINIA LAIRD La Jolla, Calif.

You reported that Vice President Dick Cheney wants us to “accept a new reality of civilian casualties and sacrifice.” Sacrifice? When giant corporations are being thrown billions of dollars? Sacrifice, when car dealers are telling us it is “economic patriotism” to buy another new gas guzzler? Sacrifice our common sense, maybe. Sacrifice our expectation that our government makes sense. No, Mr. Cheney, that’s not my definition of patriotic sacrifice. CLAUDIA ELLQUIST Tucson, Ariz.

If our goal really is to diminish terrorism, we must be involved in more than what you characterize as a “War on Two Fronts.” We must find ways to undermine the rationale for terrorism. It is blatantly counterproductive and immoral to inflict horrible suffering on millions of innocent people in Afghanistan. If we don’t halt the bombing in order to deliver food before winter sets in, we will certainly provoke more outrage and multiply the number of terrorists. Let us demonstrate that the U.S. puts compassion above revenge. ED GRAHAM Santa Rosa, Calif.

Since Sept. 11, all of us, not just George W. Bush, have been on the spot. The President needs everyone to help. We will win or lose the war against terrorism based on public support or the lack of it. It’s time to pull together. DICK STANDAERT Colorado Springs, Colo.

President Bush is making the same mistake that his father made: believing he is President of the world. Instead of worrying about the opinions of Pakistanis, Indonesians, Egyptians and Saudis, Bush should be concerned about the views of Americans, who will vote him out of office–the same way we did his father–if he does not conduct the war to a successful conclusion. BILL WOODARD Louisville, Ky.

Like many members of the loyal democratic opposition, I supported the multifaceted plan for the war on terrorism that President Bush outlined. Scant weeks later, that policy seems to have disintegrated into an ill-conceived, one-pronged military venture in Afghanistan that is causing grievous civilian casualties. The Bush Administration has played into the terrorists’ hands by polarizing Muslim opinion against the U.S. I hope that it is not already too late to undo the severe damage the Bush policy has done to global opinion of the U.S. MICHAEL WEBSTER Houston

You summed up the present situation by saying, “The world we are in is too new to package; there is nothing to compare this with, no analogy that holds up, and it’s moving too fast.” Exactly. We have been forced into a new era that none of us wants to be in, including the President. Is Bush making some mistakes? Who wouldn’t? We need to support our President. He faces challenges that none of us would want. What works today might not work tomorrow. We want answers and results fast. We are a “fast-food” society: in and out. But that is not going to happen in this war. We are fighting against terrorists who live and hide in caves. It takes a long time to turn over every rock. MIKE SEERY Lake Arrowhead, Calif.

–Are Americans beginning to wonder if the war on terrorism is taking too long? Many of you feel it is only the press that is getting antsy. “The media are the ones creating the illusion that the American public is growing impatient with the war against the Taliban,” wrote a Connecticut man. “Our leaders and military strategists never implied this was going to be over anytime soon.” A New Jerseyan agreed: “President Bush is getting a lot of support from ordinary citizens. He made it clear that this conflict would take a long time, and we understand this.” And a Virginia reader minced no words: “Only journalists desiring instant gratification could paint such a pessimistic picture of the battle against terror. Patience may not sell magazines, but it is a virtue, especially in this war.”

To Fight Flat Out or Not?

Charles Krauthammer’s piece advocating total war in our fight against terrorism hit the nail on the head [ESSAY, Nov. 5]. Our enemies are waging war against us without hesitating or consulting pollsters. The pervasive anxiety and the damage to our economy are for them happy byproducts. Yet we who are presumably capable of inflicting unimaginable destruction cannot bring ourselves to respond wholeheartedly except by draping our homes with flags. Survival requires more than singing Kumbaya around a campfire. We have forgotten the fundamental wisdom of wielding both mercy and might. If we are squeamish, we should take comfort in knowing that when this is over, America will be the leader of a safer world, and history will forgive and thank us. MAX JEVINSKY Roeland Park, Kans.

It’s not quite on target to say the U.S. has forgotten how to fight a total war. In our past world war, we knew who our enemies were. They were nations–Germany, Italy and Japan–so we knew exactly where to attack. But terrorism is not a nation; it has no specific homeland we can invade or bomb to smithereens. Krauthammer missed this point. We have not forgotten how to wage this type of war; we just haven’t figured out how to fight an enemy who will not obligingly meet us on the battlefield in the fine, old-fashioned way. Instead of matching the terrorists’ wits, we are assembling a vast military force that ultimately has no target, because the enemy isn’t “over there” but is instead right here in our midst. DANIEL QUINN Houston

What Krauthammer somehow overlooks in his bloodlust is that the sort of unilateral total war he advocates is almost certain to bring about far more acts of terrorism, including ones involving smallpox and suitcase nukes. Right now, the number of those who would inflict such horrors on us is relatively limited. Krauthammer’s total war would increase their number exponentially. GEOFF PIETSCH Gainesville, Fla.

Krauthammer was right. The other side has already defined the kind of war it is to be: total. Let’s stop fretting about international public opinion and coalition building and start worrying about winning the war, for God’s sake. It may be too late for us to be part of the Greatest Generation, but let’s at least be the second greatest. JACK HANKINSON Streamwood, Ill.

Hunt for the Anthrax Killers

Right now there are terrorists in the U.S. who know what their next target will be [BIOTERROR, Nov. 5]. Meanwhile, Americans wait in fear for airplane bombs, biological warfare and other threats. Enough is enough! Bush should state that all nations that sponsor terrorists will face nuclear reprisals if one more U.S. citizen dies in a terrorist attack. Thousands of lives would be lost if the terrorists had access to weapons of mass destruction, and they are working on getting them. Well, we have the weapons–maybe we should strike first. FRANK D’ANGELI Medford, Mass.

The threat of anthrax does not worry me a tenth as much as the political correctness, exaggerated sensitivity, tentativeness and muddled thinking that have chronically infected our national leadership. There is only one response to what has been inflicted on the U.S.: immediate annihilation of the terrorists in a manner that elicits such fear in sympathizers around the world that further attacks become unthinkable. Visits by our government leaders to mosques, kowtowing to duplicitous gulf monarchs and despots, and preoccupations with Ramadan and the opinions of hate-filled Islamic mobs in fifth-rate countries should not be part of our strategy for survival. TONY GALLO Reston, Va.

What President Bush, his aides and all the Senators and Congressmen should know is that Americans care primarily about those things that have a direct effect on them. No one will care if the military is accurately hitting enemy targets in Afghanistan if people here at home are dying of anthrax. ELAINE HARRIS New York City

Empty Package

Bravo to Karen Tumulty for her article “Just Show Business,” on the economic-stimulus package passed by the House of Representatives [Politics, Nov. 5]. I hope the American public is taking names and noting the pork-barrel politics that continues as we are being attacked. President Bush warned the gasoline companies against price gouging during this time of turmoil. He should caution politicians about promising big tabs for assistance that Congress cannot deliver. He should also warn Big Business that playing political games and threatening layoffs will not work. ELIZABETH HAYDU Baldwin, Fla.

Where Is the Money Going?

As you noted in your article “The Charity Olympics” [THE HOME FRONT, Nov. 5], tens of thousands of people made contributions to charities they believed would help those in need after the Sept. 11 attacks, and now they want to know how that money is being used. It seems unconscionable for an organization like the Red Cross to initiate a fund that appeared to be dedicated to a single cause but that management intended to dedicate to multiple purposes. The Red Cross has demonstrated not only that it is unworthy of the trust of the American people but also that it is incompetent in its management of systemic problems. Just how much money is the Red Cross making from these donations? LAURA SAVINETTI-MOBERLY Ely, Minn.

Winning Over the World

The war against terrorism can be likened to the cold war against communism: common elements include competing ideologies, a difficult-to-define enemy inside and outside the U.S., the domino theory and containment strategy [The War, Nov. 5]. Considering it took nearly 50 years for the free world to overcome communism’s ideological appeal and threat of expansion, we must do whatever we can to speed up the process of restoring stability to the Islamic world and eliminating its terrorist threat. The war in Afghanistan against terrorism, however, cannot be fought on military terms only; the minds and souls of the Islamic world must be won over. The West has managed to sell the world Coca-Cola and Marlboros; surely it can also convince people of the value of freedom, democracy, human rights and education. RAPHAEL MONNOT Paris

How ironic that the first of your “New Rules Of Engagement” is “Dig in, this is going to take some time.” On the contrary, effectively striking out against terror calls for accurate answers to only three crucial questions: 1) Are we applying the right countermeasures? 2) Will they be applied swiftly? 3) Are they accepted by the public at large? JACOB VAN DER WESTHUIZEN Pretoria, South Africa

Imitation of Death

The statement by film director Robert Altman about how movies may have influenced terrorists in their actions was direct and to the point [PEOPLE, Oct. 29]. In the quest to earn more profits, Hollywood tries to make films with bigger and more spectacular violence. And, like it or not, America produces the pictures that people all over the world watch. If the audience in Asia and the Middle East sees a New York City street being demolished with explosives, with everyone in proximity killed, viewers start to think that it could actually be done. Life imitates art, which imitates life. I think that Hollywood will not be producing many Die Hard-type movies in the near future. ROBERTO P. BONOAN Manila

One Solution to Bioterror

If the home computer were to become as ubiquitous as the television set or the mailbox [Bioterror, Nov. 5], terrorists would soon lose the potent weapon they have found in epistolary bioterrorism. In the context of huge technological advances, a paper mail system is as relevant and useful as a record player or an outhouse. Some people already point and click to pay bills, write and receive letters, and the delete button has become a sensible and economic way to dispose of massive quantities of junk mail. The public should dispense with its sentimental attachment to paper and embrace instead the dulcet, safe, microprocessed tones of “You’ve got mail.” JAMIE DAVIS Atlanta

You quoted an AOL executive who remarked that the fear surrounding anthrax in the mail has been “incredibly positive for the Internet” [Notebook, Nov. 5]. I have to ask, How insensitive can you get? People are dying, and this guy is looking at the positive impact for his company? I don’t see the people from the firm that manufactures Cipro jumping for joy because of sky-high sales. MOLLY DIAMOND El Paso, Texas

Kill Saddam with Kindness

In his commentary about the possibility of a massive U.S. attack against Iraq, Michael Elliott asked, “Is there another, quicker way of defeating Saddam?” [Global Agenda, Nov. 5]. Maybe it’s crazy, but why not simply let down the trade barriers and open the doors to Iraq? I doubt Saddam Hussein really wants that, yet he would be hard put to stop the flow of people, goods and ideas into his country, along with infiltrators and others who mean him harm. LELAND G. MEANS JR. Los Altos, Calif.