The Uncertainty of War
Even if everything Colin Powell said is true, he did not demonstrate that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States or its allies (“Judging the Case,” Feb. 17). Therefore, he did not make the case for war. As for enforcing Resolution 1441, the U.N. Charter clearly states that U.N. resolutions cannot be enforced militarily without the explicit authorization of the Security Council. Without that authorization, an invasion of Iraq by the United States and its “coalition of the willing” would be a violation of international law. Kenneth R. Slaughter Manchester, Connecticut
The Bush administration did not make its case for a war against Iraq. Colin Powell’s evidence was flimsy and unconvincing. So now George Bush is frightening Americans by constantly raising the threat level. Citizens are barricading themselves within their homes and sealing themselves in with plastic and duct tape. First fanatical flag-waving, now mass hysteria to justify a bloody war. Is this the friendly small-town America we once knew? Bush has invited hatred with his contempt of world opinion on issues ranging from the International Criminal Court to the Kyoto Protocol and now with a war against Iraq. Isn’t it time for a regime change in Washington? Marianna Kirchner Helgoland, Germany
The only flaw in an otherwise excellent article is that your reporters give far too much credit to our allies. Islamic militants threaten violence against all who side with Israel or the United States. Is it any wonder those allies prefer to maintain a safe distance whether or not they believe war against Iraq is merited? The more certain Europe is that the United States will do the dirty business on its own, the more vehemently Europe will shake its head in disapproval. Surely the Americans will forget this betrayal after a few election cycles, right? Eric Fleischauer Minor Hill, Tennessee
I’m sorry to say but your coverage of the upcoming war in your Feb. 17 issue, and especially the “Fighting a ‘Smart’ War” graphic is not the one of an objective international magazine. You have covered these events the same way a 10-year-old boy playing with his G.I. Joe dolls would. Unfortunately, this is real war we are talking about. There is no bomb “smart” enough to tell the difference between soldiers and women and children, and no F-16 looks “cool” after bombing a school or a hospital. Please, stop presenting this war like it is going to be a videogame and start showing the real consequences of it: death and nothing more. Nick Pastramas Thessaloniki, Greece
After reading “Fighting a ‘Smart’ War” I can’t decide whether the reason for this war is better oil deals or just a chance for U.S. generals to test their new weapons in real combat situations. Vangelis Papadopoulos Athens, Greece
Maybe it’s the paranoia of these times or the fact that I spent six years on missile submarines where secrecy was the watchword, but NEWSWEEK’s detailed battle-plan discussion frightens me (“Boots, Bytes and Bombs,” Feb. 17). If such sensitive information would have been published during the second world war or Vietnam, there would have been arrests for aiding the enemy. Publishing advance information on D-Day would have gotten a lot of GIs killed. The Feb. 17 issue details how we are going to wage war against Saddam Hussein. What’s the point in publishing all this information? Owen O’Connor Lake St. Louis, Missouri
Reading “Saddam’s Crimes,” I was astounded by the request of 17 American POWs for $25 million each in compensation, to be taken from frozen Iraqi funds in the United States, for what they had suffered as prisoners during the gulf war (Feb. 17). What is the compensation for the Iraqi people, who as a result of American high-tech aggression on their land, suffered psychological, physical and property damage? Not to mention the tough U.S.-imposed embargo that has already claimed more than a million lives and created poverty, hunger, suffering and humiliation. The American POWs asking for this amount of money may call it compensation. I call it blatant profiteering. Elke Somner Rome, Italy
Questioning the Questioner
I was surprised by the tone of NEWSWEEK’s article about me (“Kenya’s Question Mark,” Feb. 17). I was asked if I believed in party unity. I would have thought that the events of the past few months were answer enough. The National Rainbow Coalition succeeded because it remained united–a fatal weakness of the opposition in the previous Kenyan elections. Furthermore, more than 90 percent of my own Luo kinsmen voted for Mwai Kibaki. Thus were the foundations of a new political maturity laid in the last elections when so-called ethnic rivalries were set aside in the national interest. All of us in government–led by President Kibaki–are united in our determination to confront the challenges that we face as a nation. Millions of Kenyans who voted us into office, after years of stagnation and misrule, will not forgive us if we dilute our efforts through petty squabbles and personal ambitions. I can assure your readers that we have no intention of doing so. Raila Odinga Minister for Roads, Public Works and Housing Nairobi, Kenya
A Message to NASA
In “The Human Factor” NEWSWEEK wrote, “The human exploration of space may or may not be worth doing, but it’s not to be undertaken lightly” (Feb. 17). I hope the politicians and NASA administrators are listening. The Challenger and Columbia tragedies show that a lack of sufficient circumspection on the part of mission managers combined with the innocent enthusiasm of the astronauts is a very lethal mix. Putting human beings in the shuttle implies confidence on the part of NASA that shuttle technology has passed from the experimental stage to a point where parts are designed to cater for contingencies and flights can be made routinely. The evidence indicates that such confidence is either misplaced or overoptimistic. Your report noted an engineer closely associated with the space-station program said he and his colleagues never had the “look right” feeling about part of the shuttle’s design. When the time comes for manned shuttles to continue, the shuttle must fulfill the “look right” criterion, not the least because throughout history, the chemistry of informed human intuition has often played a major role when people explore new frontiers. It would be wrong to take such premonitions lightly. They can be very powerful predictors of hidden dangers that need to be discovered and eliminated. Peter Ulu Lagos, Nigeria
You Know Better Than That
I was surprised to read the Periscope interview with Nigel Cawthorne which reported that Saddam Hussein was “popping Viagra” and quipped that he “seems to be having a bit of trouble with his biological weapon.” This was a schoolboy crack and such unrefined humor is not suitable for a prestigious periodical like NEWSWEEK. Rahi Ahmed Karachi, Pakistan
Must We Go to Battle?
For several weeks I have tolerated the hawkish opinions of Fareed Zakaria if only for his worldly perspectives on the Iraq conflict. However, “Don’t Open a Credibility Gap” (Feb.17), draws the wrong conclusions from history. To suggest that we ought to go to war with Iraq to maintain our credibility with world powers, friendly and unfriendly, is sheer madness. Like Zakaria, I have traveled in Europe, and in my experience America’s real “credibility gap” is its practice of utilizing the United Nations for collective actions favorable to our agenda and regarding the United Nations as irrelevant when we don’t like the outcome. This undermines our role as a world citizen and distances us from both allies and enemies. Clearly far more is at stake than America’s appearance of global pre-eminence. Stephen H. Gorski Eagle, Wisconsin
Fareed Zakaria contends that George W. Bush has to go ahead with his oft-repeated threats of dislodging Saddam Hussein’s evil regime, otherwise his credibility would be affected, and in future no one would heed to warnings by U.S. leadership no matter how genuine the threats. I am afraid Zakaria’s logic is weak. Last month many members of the U.N. Security Council were less than convinced of America’s case for an Iraq invasion and there were unprecedented demonstrations in 600 cities throughout the world including London and New York. People were out protesting against war on Iraq and pleading for peace. Zakaria draws support for his contention from the saying, “When you have drawn your sword, you must use it.” On the contrary, I would plead for President Bush to act as a great leader of a great nation. By resorting to nonwar means of achieving his objectives, he would earn worldwide acclamation and gratitude by letting peace prevail, following the wise old saying, “Discretion is the better part of valor.” Bashir Malik Lahore, Pakistan
Fareed Zakaria put into words my discomfort about the impending war, even though I trust and support my president. “To disarm or face ‘serious consequences’ " cannot mean sending in a few dozen more inspectors. In September, President Bush made his case to the United Nations, as did Colin Powell with his persuasive evidence. To back down now and look like we were only bluffing will lead much of the world to the conclusion that our resolve is dissolvable by the few who do not agree with us: the few who are greatly indebted to the United States of America for much of their freedom and prosperity. Regina Hoffmann Wapakoneta, Ohio
While his credibility argument will sit well with the White House, Fareed Zakaria appears to have forgotten that the Bush administration’s credibility has already been severely undermined throughout the world by its abrogation of the ballistic missile treaty and the Kyoto accords on global warming, not to mention opposition to the World Court of Criminal Justice and withholding health aid to developing countries that provide comprehensive family-planning assistance. Add to that, Donald Rumsfeld’s denial that war with Iraq has anything to do with oil and one wonders if there is any credibility left to lose. Don Bay Froson, Sweden
Fareed Zakaria shouldn’t write about what to do now, but how the United States actually got itself into this position. It talked too loud, too proud, too soon. Cowboy attitude and tactics. Axis of Evil? Come on. This is not Hollywood and the United States is not, by far, the good guy. Gabriel Chavez-Tafur Lima, Peru
Fareed Zakaria, worrying about U.S. credibility, asks, if it turns out the president is bluffing about “serious consequences”… “what would happen the next time the United States makes threats?” His question suggests that the only thing bad about U.S. threats might be their lack of credibility–as though the threats themselves don’t constitute a violation of international law. I suggest he re-read the U.N. Charter Article 2.4 which requires all members to refrain from “the threat or use of force.” Ray Perkins Plymouth, New Hampshire
A sword is often drawn in a moment of extreme anger and an emotionally charged frame of mind. Would Zakaria insist upon its use just because it has been drawn once, even if subsequent cool minded appraisal indicates that it was drawn unwisely in the first place? V. R. Bakhashi Islamabad, Pakistan
By writing, “You have drawn your sword. Now you must use it,” Fareed Zakaria failed to draw the right conclusion with regards to the Bush administration. They should have spent more time thinking about the short- and long-term consequences before they drew the sword! It is a sad fact that this war now has to be fought because George W. Bush does not want to lose face, so the administration is going to put the lives of hundreds of thousands at stake. Saddam Hussein is worth one bullet, maximum, but not a single life more. Wolfgang Ehle Frankfurt, Germany
