Inbox

Thanks to Michael Kinsley for engaging the myth that to question the validity of the Iraq war is to betray the troops in the field [March 5]. Equating support for soldiers with military escalation is insidious. True support would be to remove them from harm’s way. But I take exception to your affirmation that the cause — to remove a dictator — was worthy. That’s just as dishonest as saying we need to continue the war to support the troops. Is the civil war that we unleashed a noble cause? Or was the arrogant pretext of imposing Western values on an ancient civilization really camouflage for establishing military bases in the Middle East and expanding the American empire?
Nels Henry, Canton, Illinois, U.S.

May I as an elderly Brit take issue with Kinsley? He followed the politicians’ favorite ploy of having one’s cake and eating it too. In the first years of World War II, the U.S. was loath to engage the Nazis in a foreign war. It wasn’t until that era’s “9/11 moment” — the attack on Pearl Harbor — that the U.S. woke up and realized there was a terrible war of civilizations going on. But, boy, when you did wake up, you didn’t go to sleep again. In Britain we were being slaughtered, and we were mighty thankful to see the Yanks occupying our countryside, I can tell you. Thank God there were no Kinsleys around wanting to bring the boys home when the going got tough. By comparison, Iraq is a walk in the park.
Reg Brissenden, Dorset, England

I was sorry to see Kinsley say that President George W. Bush’s motives for invading Iraq were “to liberate a country from a dictator, perhaps to find and destroy some dangerous weapons.” He made no mention of securing an oil supply, establishing military bases in the Middle East and promoting neoconservative ideology. Those less altruistic motives are the elephant in the room that everyone refuses to acknowledge. The U.S. cannot withdraw troops from Iraq because they are protecting oil, military bases and neocons’ egos.
Janet Maker, Los Angeles

We must support the coalition in Iraq. It doesn’t matter how much of a mistake we think we made going in. We have to stick around and clean up the mess. If the coalition were to pull out now, it would leave behind a very unstable, weak nation at the mercy of its neighbors. Iran considers itself the new big dog in the yard and is fueling the civil war in Iraq. How long would it be before Iran moved in for the kill? If it were allowed to take over Iraq, Iran would be the most powerful nation in the region and fearless in confronting the West. Iran is a big dog penned up in its yard. But if we withdraw troops from Iraq, Iran will become a monster that no yard can hold.
Adam J. Cooney, Coventry, England

Front Runners Lacking Luster
Joe Klein could not have been more wrong in stating “Most voters don’t care if Hillary Clinton says ‘I was wrong’ about Iraq” [March 5]. After six years of Bush’s refusal to admit having made a mistake, all voters, not just Democrats, understand that such a refusal is clear evidence of a lack of integrity. We the people will not elect another person who lacks the integrity to admit a mistake.
Jules P. Kirsch, New York City

If Clinton’s remarks on her Iraq vote were politically driven, she would have admitted a mistake by now, as her failure to do so is killing her on the talk shows and in political columns. She is probably telling a simple truth: that given the same intelligence and circumstances, she would vote for war again. We can criticize her for not recognizing that the intelligence was dubious and for voting for war against a state that did not aggress against us. Or we can critique the Bush Administration for cooking the intelligence. Either way, we are not served by the focus on whether she utters the word mistake. If the media coverage of the 2008 election has already been reduced to this, I fear for what it will look like this time next year.
Jeanne Hey, Edinburgh, Ohio, U.S.

The Democrats should focus on issues. Fighting among themselves is counterproductive, as is responding to slander from Republicans. The Democrats should limit the number of candidates to those most likely to succeed. I would like to hear more statements on issues, such as John Edwards’ proposals for health-care reform. And Dems should remember that Al Gore could be an incredible asset to any candidate.
Mimi Geier, Barcelona

A Galactic Joyride
In your article on the thrust to develop space tourism [March 5], you didn’t point out the enormous amount of energy required for a brief thrill ride to space. The unmanned space program has brought advances in communications technology and defense systems. The sole significant justification for manned spaceflight is … more spaceflight. Manned spaceflight for exploration’s sake is one thing. Trying to justify it on economic grounds is another.
John Day, Powell, Ohio

The View from Valencia
With regard to Geoff Pingree’s article on Valencia’s new opera house [Feb. 26]: My husband and I have been to four performances at the Palau de les Arts Reina Sofía. We can understand why people are dazzled by the hall’s “curved walls, rolling stairways; turquoise reflecting pools topped by a detached, featherlike roof.” Artistic quality is indeed high, and the acoustics are excellent. Each seat is equipped with a small screen allowing you to see the libretto in one of several languages. But surely, for the €325 million that the building cost, every seat should have a full view of the stage. That would certainly increase Valencia’s chance of taking its place among the major opera houses of the world.
Rosalind Miranda, Alcalalí, Spain

Integrating Europe
Your report on the problem of integrating minorities into European societies was very timely [Feb. 26]. Some of the solutions Jumana Farouky advocated, however, struck me as unrealistic. As I see it, multiethnic and multiracial societies have not worked well anywhere else. The secret to peaceful coexistence is integration based on assimilation, with the minority group ready to become part of mainstream society, adopting the host nation’s traditions and — above all — its language. This is what lies behind the successful U.S. concept of the melting pot, whereas the competing ideal of the salad bowl has mostly failed.
Volker Schmitgen, Weilheim, Germany

Farouky might want to add a sixth point to her solid list of ways for Europe’s diverse inhabitants to get along. Rather than try to bolster our Christian credentials in response to fears that Islamists are intent on colonizing Europe, we should institutionalize inclusiveness for people of all backgrounds throughout the region. But try telling that to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who, to mark the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, is planning to revive the European Constitution underpinned with a Berlin Declaration claiming that Europe is based on Christian values. Fortunately a Europe-wide collaboration of Christians, Muslims, humanists, academics, politicians, writers and ngos is proposing an alternative Brussels Declaration restating the common, inclusive values embraced by modern European civilization.
Hamish MacPherson, London

Older faces were conspicuously absent from the cover. When we South Africans found ourselves faced with the puzzle of getting along in our new democracy, despite our many differences and troubled history, we were able to thread the needle, thanks largely to the good sense that seems to come with a few gray hairs. Young Europeans need to listen to those who are older and wiser. While you may have sought to include this point in your analysis, it was a bit lost amid the flush of beautiful young faces that graced the cover.
Greg Ender, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

Rudy on Rights
In asserting that the right to bear arms is part of the U.S. Constitution, Rudy Giuliani expresses a popular understanding of that document’s Second Amendment [Feb. 26]. When the U.S. was established, the right to bear arms was linked to what was regarded as the duty of every able-bodied citizen to protect the state. This is not the same as authorizing every citizen to keep arms for private purposes. The enemies of the U.S. have progressed to methods and weapons against which a gun-bearing militia would be powerless. Opponents of gun control have the right to argue their case, but reliance on an anachronistic provision does not appear to be a sound argument.
Sundara Venkatesan, Mumbai

Lieberman’s G.O.P. Tryst
“What Joe wants” [March 5] discussed Senator Joe Lieberman’s cross-aisle flirtation and his seeming preference for John McCain in 2008 — in the hope that McCain would select Joe as his vice-presidential running mate. Although a Lieberman crossover would turn control of the Senate back to the Republicans, a 2008 gain in the Senate by the Dems would force him out of the limelight he so assiduously craves. The reality is that most people see through his machinations. He might consider a crash course in chess before it’s checkmate for his political influence.
Fred Plemenos, Lexington, Massachusetts, U.S.