The Right Stuff
THE INVASION OF IRAQ was indeed the right war–but also for reasons not mentioned in Robert Kagan and William Kristol’s “The Right War for the Right Reasons” (Feb. 23).
Access to information on terrorist networks and financing was more forthcoming from other countries once it became clear that the United States was prepared to implement U.N. resolutions and confront the Saddam regime.
Yes, our presence in Iraq has drawn foreign terrorists to the country and increased their efforts to undermine coalition efforts to rebuild the economy and restructure the Iraqi polity.
But terrorists are more likely to lose in long-term confrontations with us in Iraq than if they had been dispersed and prepared for attacks across many borders and on their own timetable. In a sense, the U.S. military has forced the terrorists to adopt tactics more typical of the battlefield than of the civilian landscape. This, too, was a reason for war.
Donna Robinson Divine
Northampton, MA
WHILE I AGREE with the views expressed in Robert Kagan and William Kristol’s “The Right War for the Right Reasons,” I’m not sure that they met their stated objective of returning to first principles.
Instead, Kagan and Kristol give the impression that our justification for war in Iraq was the liberation of the oppressed and the restoration of stability in the Middle East.
While those reasons could be enough for some to wage war against Iraq, they do not suffice for sacrificing the lives of our servicemen. Surely our foreign policy must be predicated on defending our nation’s interests.
Once you commit the United States to wars to end the oppression of foreign peoples, you also commit the United States to endless wars, for so many people are oppressed today. The better way to help others would be by building an exemplary nation at home.
When America is seriously threatened, as she is currently by militant Islamists, it is distracting to get into entanglements that do not counter that threat.
Allen Weingarten
Morristown, NJ
Bad Marriage
WILLIAM KRISTOL and Joseph Bottum’s editorial, “For the Marriage Amendment,” was a thoughtful, accurate piece on the impact of same-sex marriage on American society (Feb. 23). Those calling for the Federal Marriage Amendment espouse no malice toward gay people. Supporting the amendment is not a judgment on the value of any individual person. The amendment is simply an attempt to preserve one of the oldest social institutions in history.
However, there is one problem that requires more than a constitutional amendment to address. Kristol and Bottum neglect this problem in their editorial. Most clearly stated, it is the rabid secular liberalism that plagues appellate courts throughout the United States today. Liberal secularists have thrown their weight behind the idea of same-sex marriage, just as they did with abortion thirty years ago. And even though liberal secularists are in the extreme minority, they have somehow managed to secure an amazingly disproportionate number of judgeships around the country.
Here’s the crux of the matter: Until more Americans wake up to the fact that having liberal judges who impose their own beliefs on the Constitution is detrimental to the system, we will continue to face issues like judicially imposed same-sex marriage. Amending the Constitution in regard to this particular issue will only direct the attention of liberal secularists toward another area of American values. And liberal jurists will continue to positively cackle with glee.
Joseph Woodfin
South Pittsburg, TN
IN “FOR THE MARRIAGE AMENDMENT,” William Kristol and Joseph Bottum argue brilliantly in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment, but nonetheless fail to see the larger point beneath the controversy swirling around same-sex marriage and its imposition in the United States.
While it is true, as Kristol and Bottum point out, that “when courts cast their political preferences as constitutional law, only a constitutional amendment can answer them,” it is also true that the Constitution was not intended to be amended frivolously or to settle otherwise trivial policy points.
Rather, the timespan of the Constitution is gauged in centuries, not mere years or even decades. People feel this instinctively and will naturally resist an amendment so narrow in scope that it sits small in comparison to the other, more profound additions to our founding document.
The problem that requires fundamental change is not gay marriage but the unchecked power of the federal judiciary itself. The amendment we need would ban raging judicial activism, the elite and unchecked power that is stifling the will of the people and jeopardizing our democracy in increasingly dangerous ways.
Jason Bruce Jones
Canton, GA
WILLIAM KRISTOL and Joseph Bottum’s editorial in support of a federal marriage amendment deals only with the political effects of state-sanctioned gay marriage.
But few pundits have discussed the effect state-sanctioned same-sex marriage would have on current state laws and public policy favoring marriage. For example, if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, or even form civil unions, will states requiring marriage counseling as a precondition to divorce be required to similarly attempt to preserve same-sex marriages?
Or will school districts and even religious institutions be required to give equal time or recognition to same-sex marriages during instruction on the obligations of marriage?
To paraphrase Shakespeare, it seems that there is more to same-sex marriage than has been dreamed of in our ideologies.
Merwyn R. Markel
Hallandale Beach, FL
Oiligarchy
IN “OIL’S WELL . . .” (Feb. 23), Irwin M. Stelzer writes that the Russian government has little incentive to work against OPEC’s production policy, since higher oil prices are a boon to the Russian economy. While it is true that Russia’s economy does benefit when oil prices are high, Stelzer’s argument does not take all the facts into account.
For one thing, Moscow is not known for its compliance with OPEC’s production targets. In recent years, the cartel has repeatedly asked Russia to trim exports in order to support OPEC’s pricing policy (to keep oil prices at higher levels).
However, Russian officials have generally responded to these requests with little more than vague statements about the need for the stability of world oil markets, as well as sly promises to cut exports by nominal amounts. When such promises are made, they are usually not kept. Russian exports have risen steadily over the last few years despite government officials’ assertions of the need to maintain stability in the world oil market.
Moreover, it is not at all clear that Russian production and export levels have much of an effect on oil prices. The world crude market is very sensitive to shifts in OPEC’s production policy. That is, prices tend to fluctuate markedly in response to the cartel’s pronouncements on production. Shifts in Russian production, however, have much less of an impact on prices. (Indeed, the conventional wisdom among industry analysts is that Russia’s ability to affect the course of world oil markets is very limited.)
As a result, even though increases in Russian exports may exert some bearish pressure on prices, the market is being driven mostly by bullish factors–namely, OPEC’s efforts to keep prices high. This has created a situation in which Russia has been able to benefit from OPEC’s efforts to keep prices high without doing any of the work.
Accordingly, Russia has little, if any, incentive to support OPEC’s pricing policy. And the evidence seems to indicate that it has not done so. Russian crude production levels rose by more than 9 percent year-on-year in 2003, while exports rose by nearly 16 percent.
Jennifer DeLay
Atlanta, GA
Things TheyKerry’d
AS A CONSERVATIVE current affairs junkie who has been loath to turn on the TV lately, I want to thank Fred Barnes for his “Kerry Nation?” (Feb. 23). But I think a few other items to calm Republicans nervous about President Bush’s reelection chances (that includes me sometimes) are worth mentioning.
First, the polls and the pundits have been highly volatile recently. Just a month or so ago, most polls showed Bush looking unbeatable, and even liberal pundits were grudgingly acknowledging the Democratic party’s likely defeat. Now they say Bush is in trouble. The point is that polls will swing often over the course of the campaign.
Second, the “Kerry phase,” as Fred Barnes describes this portion of the campaign, is particularly strong these days because Terry McAuliffe actually succeeded at something for once. Specifically, McAuliffe’s frontloaded primary process managed not to backfire, and ended up likely nominating a solid candidate in Senator John Kerry. Once Kerry’s luster fades, we will be in the “Bush phase” of the campaign.
It’s also worth noting that Bush’s strength on the economy will not be fully apparent until late summer. Right now, Bush’s economic strengths are apparent only to people who follow the equity markets and financial news. But assuming employment really kicks into high gear this spring, by the time of the November election it’s likely that most people will recognize Bush’s economic strengths.
Of course, the payroll survey may not kick into higher gear. It has been slower to recover than expected. But look at the numbers from September through January in comparison to those of the prior six months. You’ll see a gradual recovery.
For months, some financial analysts have been saying that the employment numbers will shoot up this spring. For Bush’s sake, and the country’s, let’s hope they are right.
John Sepehri
Dallas, TX
FRED BARNES IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT about the impact a clever TV ad can make.
One ad I’d like to see the Bush campaign produce would parody a scene in “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers” in which the character Gollum, a schizophrenic monster whose personality has been warped by the powerful ring, has an argument with himself.
Only in this ad, it would be John Kerry arguing with himself over his constantly shifting positions.
Mike Perry
Seattle, WA
Errata
IN TERRY EASTLAND’S “Bush’s Gospel,”the prescription drug benefit passed by Congress and signed by President Bush last year is said “to cost not what [Bush] first said it would, $400 million over the next 10 years but, according to the latest administration estimate, at least $500 million.”
In fact, Bush said the bill would first cost $400 billion, and the latest administration estimate has the number at $500 billion.
