Top 10 Letters

*1*
I agreed with Fred Barnes’s assessment. I never expected the president to pick a “true” conservative. Bush has almost always adopted a safe stance. An example of this is McCain-Feingold. It was safe to sign the bill while expecting the high court to cut it down. But that didn’t happen. His failure to use the presidential veto, in my mind, betrays a politician who really is not willing to take off his jacket and get into the fight. Consulting with the senators on his choice may appear politically deft but intrinsically weakens the presidency. I think that the conservatives should grill Judge Roberts on his interpretation of the constitution on key social issues. They should get a straightforward answer regarding his feelings on whether the court can use European law when deciding cases. All in all I am not the least bit comfortable with the president’s choice.

–Charles E. Umhey Jr.

*2*
Sadly, I have to agree with Fred Barnes. Barnes’s thinking on Roe is not far from my own. Roberts, I can just tell, will not have the spine to overturn Roe. This dreadful thought has been slowly dawning on me the whole day. If our suspicions are confirmed, then President Bush will have failed us horribly.

This is my perception of recent events–the Lord knows I hope Barnes and I are wrong.

–Mike Azinger

*3*
William Kristol should give Bush even more credit than he does for the political savvy of this nomination. By nominating a conservative white male with an unimpeachable record, Roberts can be filibustered only on the grounds that he is conservative. This sets the stage well for when Rehnquist steps down. Then Bush can nominate a woman or minority–someone virtually identical to Roberts in temperament and ideology. Having let Roberts in, how will the Democrats oppose a nominee who “looks like” Roberts in every way except that he or she is not a white male?

–Mark Swanson

*4*
The Bork precedent, as Fred Barnes points out, is an important one. But the Souter precedent (and for that matter, the Warren, Brennan, Blackmun, and Stevens precedents, not to mention the O’Connor and Kennedy precedents) should be foremost in the minds of the Bush team. Republican presidents have been burned badly on many nominees. As a practicing lawyer with a strong interest in constitutional Law, I can think of few, if any, corresponding examples on the Democratic side, except, to a much lesser degree, the Byron White precedent.

–John Sepehri

*5*
Stephen Schwartz’s suggestions in “Towards a Saudi Constitutional Monarchy” are intended to drive a wedge between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, they should be unpalatable to even the most casual observer. The writer seems to forget that Saudi Arabia is an independent and sovereign nation. Saudi Arabia is the heart of both the Muslim and Arab world, and it derives its respectability and strength not from the alliance with this or that country, but from two sources: the loyalty and love of its people and the respect and affection of its Muslim and Arab brothers and neighbors.

However, we are also appreciative of the good relationship we have with our American friends. Instead of dispensing advice to your secretary of sate on what to say to the Saudi leadership, Schwartz is well advised to listen to what Secretary of State Rice said only a few days ago: “reform is going to be a Saudi-led process and something that is going to reflect the approach and history and culture of that country.”

As far as our stand on terrorism is concerned, we do not need advice from anyone. Our actions speak for themselves. And if more is needed it is only appropriate to listen to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, who praised Saudi Arabia’s fight against terrorism, declaring that it can’t be compared to that of any other country.

–Khalid AlSaeed
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

*6*
Michael Goldfarb’s piece on the Rods from God only serves to demonstrate that a good idea is hard to put down. In fact, the earliest proposals for using kinetic energy penetrators, based in low earth orbit, to strike terrestrial targets dates back to the 1960s (when, I believe, it was known as “Thor’s Hammer”). Similar proposals were developed in the 1970s and 1980s, under various guises, to hit high-value Soviet and Warsaw Pact targets in Eastern Europe–most notably airfields in Germany and Poland. The principle in all cases was the same: F = 1/2 MV squared. An object coming down at a velocity of 8-10,000 miles per hour need not have an explosive charge, nor significant mass, to inflict catastrophic damage on the most hardened targets–provided it can score a direct hit. And therein lay the principal shortcoming of earlier proposals: then-current guidance and control systems lacked the accuracy for hit-to-kill engagements. Now, of course, much has changed. GPS guidance can get the space penetrator into a “basket” less than a meter in diameter, while terminal guidance units (millimeter wave or laser imaging radar) can reduce the circular error probability for such a weapon to a foot or less. Modern, broadband communication systems can transfer targeting data from ground-based, airborne, or space-based sensors to orbital platforms in near-real time, allowing not just fixed, but also mobile targets to be engaged. If you are a bin Laden or al Zarqawi, this may give you a crick in the neck from constant looking over your shoulder–but really to no avail, since you’ll only know you’ve been targeted after you’ve been hit.

So, if this is such a good idea, why hasn’t it gone farther in development? Aside from waiting for technology to catch up with concept, the main obstacles have been “theological”–a naive belief in the pristine nature of space, which must never be “militarized”. This, of course, ignores the fact that space has been militarized since the first V-2 came down on London (for how does a ballistic missile get to its target, if not by flyng through space?). Moreover, since then space has been used for communications (the U.S. Army now depends on satellite communications not only for long-haul but for short-range tactical communications, since it is more reliable and harder to intercept); for imaging and electronic intelligence gathering; for early warning against missile attack; and to redirect cruise missiles in flight. Space is therefore already an integral part of the battlefield, and it is only a matter of time before one or more of our current or potential adversaries recognizes our reliance upon space and seeks to deny its use to us. We, in turn, will have to act to defend our control of space, and to deny space to our enemies. In short, space today is in the same place that the air was just prior to World War I, and should the U.S. ever become involved in a war with a power that has reasonably mature space capabilities, we will see war in space just as we saw war in the air in the Great War of 1914-18.

–Stuart Koehl
Senior Fellow, Center for Transatlantic Relations
Johns Hopkins University, School of Advanced International Studies

*7*
Tying aid to real reform is the only way to help Africa, as Roger Bate and Richard Tren point out. Handing out money to corrupt regimes never was nor never will be the answer to helping the poor. I’m pleased to see that some leaders (and pundits) are finally beginning to see that.

–Sylvia Finlayson
Executive Director, Care for Life
careforlife.org

*8*
Roger Bate and Richard Tren are right on the money. I’m from Ethiopia and the United States government is adding salt to the wounds of the Ethiopian poor by giving this sum of money directly to the government. All the land is owned by the government. The ruling party owns and operates large companies that are given tremendous advantages both in terms of tax relief and their access to those government assets put up for privatization.

By their own law, it is illegal for political parties to own a company. Can any of the State Department officials explain the difference between Robert Mugabe and Meles Zenawi?

Apparently the United States is applying a double standard. President Bush is absolutely right to tie aid to democratic reform.

–Get Yismaw

*9* I detected sarcasm in Bill Whalen’s comments about the Earthquakes. Just because our biased media discounts major league soccer doesn’t mean the league fails to offer big league quality and big league fun. The Quakes’ road to the 2003 title culminated in one of the greatest sporting events ever in America. Plus the players don’t use steroids or exhibit an over-paid and over-pampered attitude. My guess is Whalen has never been to a game. I’d be happy to score him some tickets, my treat.
–Don Gagliardi

*10* I enjoyed Duncan Currie’s Havana Club. It is well presented and offers a balanced discussion of the recent dissident gathering in Cuba. The meeting was a record breaker in many senses, as the author mentioned. Regarding the assertion that Cuba doesn’t have Vaclav Havels and Lech Walesas, I think leaders like them are born every day from the circumstances of the countries they live in, but they are kept alive, in part, thanks to public opinion. Peaceful, deprived sometimes of a pen or a piece of paper with which to express their opinions, and with followers powerless to show public support, Cuban civil society activists rely almost solely on the support and legitimacy of international public opinion. In other words, they depend on writers like Currie, and journals like The Weekly Standard, to stop a dictator from resorting to violence and send the message to the Cuban people that the world stands with them. We don’t create dictators, but they are kept alive when governments and financial institutions lend them legitimacy. In the same way, we can keep alive those new Cuban Havels and Walesas by informing the public about their progress.
–Soren Triff