The Rise of a Russian Dictator I was amazed by your July 23 cover story, “The Tyrant’s Turn.” We obviously haven’t learned from history, so time and time again we make the mistake of second-guessing other cultures and assume that there is a lingering longing for our values. Just as Iraq and Afghanistan are not (and never will be) democracies in the Western sense of the word, the same is true for Russia. The fact of officially denationalizing certain core industries and making Moscow and St. Petersburg “designer” cities does not mean we can generalize about the rest of the country. President Vladimir Putin is doing only what Russian leaders have always done: seeking absolute power. Just stop for a moment and think what attending G8 meetings does for Putin. It makes him envious and he wants even more power. Karl H. Pagac Villeneuve-Loubet, France
I’m no longer surprised by your manic anti-Putin obsession. Hardly a week passes by without your attacking the Russian president for his words and deeds. Russia—whether tsarist, communist or democratic—has always been a world-class power and has the indispensable right to define its interests as it wishes, without having to succumb to Washington’s pressures. It is quite reasonable that Russia objects to the installation of the U.S. antiballistic-missile shield near its borders. No sensible person can swallow the absurd claim that the missiles are being installed to protect Europe from an Iranian or North Korean ballistic-missile strike. Neither Iran nor North Korea has the technological means or the desire to hurt Europe. The sole purpose of the antimissile shield is the isolation of Russia and its demotion to a second-class, irrelevant power. Putin is also being harshly criticized for approving arms deals with America’s foes. First, he’s the leader of a sovereign country, therefore he is not obliged to ask for the White House’s or Congress’s consent before selling arms to foreign countries. Second, the countries that acquire Russian arms pose no threat to U.S. security. They are just seeking some high-quality modern weaponry to bolster their poor defenses against a possible U.S. military intervention similar to the one that “liberated” Iraq in 2003. Are U.S. politicians looking for a new poodle for President Bush’s garden, now that Tony Blair is gone? Rest assured that Putin will not inherit that humiliating role. He just wants respect for Russia. Georgios Kapellakos Halkis, Greece
In your May 28 article “Young Russia Rises,” you declare that it is an overstatement to say Nashi is modeled on the Hitler Youth. I was in the Hitler Youth, and I tell you that, in its focusing on the Leader Putin, on discipline and on physical prowess, it is a carbon copy. I liked Putin in the beginning, but now that he has Nashi and police detachments that act like the SS, it is very worrisome. Friedrich Ragette Callian, France
A Pollyanna Policy in Iraq? In “Refusing To Lose” (July 23), you say Americans don’t like the word “defeat.” Since George W. Bush blindly launched military action against Iraq without the backing of international law or a United Nations resolution, he was inviting trouble by his obstinacy. Thousands of Americans have demonstrated against Bush’s biggest blunder in attacking Iraq. Look how he has exposed the world to more terrorist attacks and damaged America’s image worldwide. It is time he stepped down so the world’s greatest democracy can regain its lost prestige. Dan Chellumben Amboise, France
Faith-fueled President Bush pursues his Pollyanna mission to make Iraq a “better” place. How much longer will his lethal project continue? Until Jan. 20, 2009? It is a stiff price to pay in blood, money and the country’s reputation. I want to know, where are the tar and feathers? Michael G. Driver Ichihara City, Japan
President Bush is opposed to the destruction of human embryos for stem-cell research. But thanks to his policy, every month hundreds of fully developed humans are destroyed in Iraq. By what legerdemain does he reconcile these two facts? C.J.M. Mathew Bangalore, India
In Diana ’ s Defense Has NEWSWEEK turned into The National Enquirer? Princess Diana’s kids may have read your June 18 cover story, “The Private Di,” and been hurt. How can you publish something so cheap about a lady? As a woman, I’m offended. Montserrat Botey Naucalpan, Mexico
I found your article “The Private Di” trashy and the interview with Tina Brown even worse. There are enough magazines publishing that kind of rubbish without your adding to them. That was six wasted pages. I hope you don’t repeat such low-grade journalism again—that is not what I subscribe to NEWSWEEK for. Eliane Driver St-Etienne, France
The cover story on Princess Diana was disgusting. I see no point in listing her bad deeds a decade after her death. Every person in this world has a good and bad side, so obviously Diana did, too. Why should it be made public now? Sahar Karim Karachi, Pakistan
Turkey ’ s Ruling Party I was really sorry to read Fareed Zakaria’s column “A Quiet Prayer for Democracy” (May 21). He either doesn’t see or doesn’t seem to understand that the ruling AK Party in Turkey is an Islamic political party and has an apparent (not hidden) Islamic agenda. Just talking to Abdullah Gul by phone isn’t enough to comprehend Turkey’s politics. Not to mention all the things the AK Party has done to Islamicize Turkey, I just want to remind Zakaria what the president of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, Bulent Arinc, a prominent member of the AK Party, said in public during the presidential-election process: “The president will be civilian, democratic and pious.” But being faithful is not a criterion of the presidential election under Turkey’s secular Constitution. We, secularist Turks, don’t discriminate between people on the basis of their being religious or not. Do you? Please don’t ignore the fact that the millions of rallying secularist Turks don’t want this Islamic government. Erol Numanoglu Antakya, Turkey
The AK party’s defense has always been to say it has not passed any laws that will open the way to Sharia in Turkey. That is true only because the constitutional system and millions in the streets did not allow it to do so. Otherwise, its intentions and attempts to transform the present educational and judicial systems are well known to the public. It is interesting to note that the Western world, especially the United States and Britain, has shown such staunch support of the AK Party. In the latter’s vision, Turkey’s open-minded, liberal, well-educated and hardworking millions are nothing but “secular elitists.” I assure you, they do not represent any elite. All they want is not to have neighborhoods in the country where it is impossible to see a woman in the streets without a headscarf, let alone in a miniskirt. They do not want to have towns where liquor is banned, and where having lunch during Ramadan is totally unacceptable. They do not want Turkish educational and judiciary systems to be redesigned in accordance with the “mild” Islamic rules. Turkey’s historical background, as a major state in this part of the world, goes back more than 600 years. And Turkey will emerge through the present difficult times even stronger than before. But I do think that the media of our Western allies need to behave more responsibly. Ahmet Tanor Istanbul, Turkey
Truman ’ s Israel Policy Michael Beschloss’s portrayal of Harry Truman’s recognition of Israel in “A Case of Courage” (May 21) is antithetical to what he acclaims as “presidential courage.” Truman’s 1948 decision to support the creation of Israel was buoyed by 300 years of American society referring to itself, in literature and from pulpits across conquered territory, as the “new Israel.” That anchored early colonists’ justification of their smiting the indigenous “new Canaanites.” That ideological continuum made the concept of “Israel” sacramental to many of Truman’s domestic constituencies. Truman’s appropriately felt—but geopolitically misguided—sympathy for one group of Holocaust victims combined with a will to erase yet another indigenous people. That allied him and the United States inextricably to an anachronistic colonial enterprise. (The Zionist project had already carried out general dispossession and population transfer—to be codified later as a war crime and crime against humanity—and some Palestinians had even been killed before his approval of the Jewish state, or any Arab state’s reaction to it.) Truman risked the wrath of concerned opponents: not just wacko anti-Semites, but especially (then) anti-Zionist American Jews and concerned wise persons. Truman was undaunted by such opposition (your photo accompanying the article belies the premise of domestic controversy), and propelled the United States into an emotional and morally wrongheaded policy for which today’s world suffers and pays. No characterization could dignify that Truman legacy as “courage,” which Beschloss defines (in “A President’s Ultimate Test,” May 21) as combined “bravery and wisdom.” Joseph Schechla Washington, D.C.
Ending an Egyptian Relationship You correctly note in “Go For Broke” (May 21) that Bannerman & Associates chose to end a 17-year relationship with the government of Egypt. The item then erroneously characterizes the reasons for that decision. During the past year, we terminated relationships with all our non-American clients. Egypt is the foreign client with whom we had worked the longest when the last contract ended. We firmly believe good relations between the United States and Egypt are essential to the national interests of both peoples. I have personally worked to build this relationship since the Sinai II disengagement agreement was negotiated (1975), when I was working for the U.S. State Department. My commitment to strengthen this relationship did not diminish in all the years I worked for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, nor does it now. The peace between Egypt and Israel remains the foundation upon which our regional interests are constructed. Although contentious issues have developed, support for the U.S.-Egyptian relationship remains strong among congressional Democrats and Republicans, as well as within the administration. At a time when U.S. standing among the people of the Middle East is near a record low, one would have expected that even greater differences would have developed. After 20 years as president of Bannerman & Associates, I decided to do things I had put off. American interests in the Middle East and elsewhere are facing the most serious challenges in 40 years. I want to add my voice to the public discussion of these issues through speaking and writing. Working for a regional government would seriously compromise my credibility; therefore, I decided to end all those relationships. M. Graeme Bannerman Washington, D.C.
Energy-Efficient Navigation “Pay As You Drive” (Technologist, May 21) leaves one question unanswered. When will the techno-wizards square the circle and tell us via our in-car navigation which is the cheapest and most energy efficient route to follow? Phil Dunnington Bristol, England
