Top 10 Letters

*1*
Here is some more simplistic thinking for David Brooks (The Certainty Crisis): I voted for George W. Bush. When I did, I expected him to swear to protect and defend the Constitution (and thus, me and my family) against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I did not and do not want or expect him to obtain the permission of France, Russia, China, the United Nations, or anyone else before he takes action in regard to his oath of office. The day he does is the day I find another candidate.

–Mike Webster

*2*
It is interesting the media frenzy over the French (Fred Barnes, Taking the French at Their Word). I would say that most of the critics on either side have never been to the other country.

The French have adopted many things American, such as the “Supremarche,” McDonalds, American movies–the list is long. The list of French products accepted in the United States is long but perhaps the most profound influence by France on America is the language, as expressed by British Foreign Minister Jack Straw when in response to his French counterpart, he called England an “old country founded by the French in 1066”.

The fact is that France is the number one tourist destination in the world. What is it that so many people find so compelling about a visit to France? I would suggest that Barnes go there and find out.

About the supposed rudeness of the French to foreigners: I did feel this way the first time I lived in France, but of course I spent most of my time with Americans. The truth is that if you make any attempt to speak their language, the average Frenchman will go out of his way to help.

So the problem is not people but politics. Try to imagine America 300 hundred years from now when China or some other “truly large” country is the super power. How will the Americans play their role on the world stage? Remember, France was the most powerful country in the world before America became a country. Do they wish to have an impact on world affairs? Of course.

The United States has wisely chosen to remain muted in its reaction to French efforts to stir the pot of world power politics, but make no mistake, what we are seeing today is a worldwide reaction to American preeminence, not support for Saddam Hussein.

–Kendall Will

*3*
In Hugh Hewitt’s presentation of some of Solzhenitsyn’s remarks, he might have at least given The Daily Standard’s readers some idea of what Solzhenitsyn is actually saying (Solzhenitsyn, Again). Looks to me like once you get past the intellectual gobbledygook and metaphysical whining, his speech looks like little more than an attack on democratic processes. Besides that, some of his statements are objectively false, at least as a description of the United States.

Solzhenitsyn talks about a lack of political “courage” that democracies show. In fact few Americans–or their leaders–lack courage when it comes to defending our nation. Someone should remind Solzhenitsyn, in case he’s forgotten, that Americans certainly did not lack courage during the Second World War, nor during the Cold War. Americans are dealing with terrorists and terrorism now and have been for some time. Again, imperfectly, but we do not shrink from the important jobs.

Also, the Solzhenitsyn speech showed a striking lack of understanding about basic democratic processes. He seems not to understand that when it comes to the fact that public policy in a democracy involves the input of citizens and their representatives, many of whom tend to disagree on the best ways of carrying out foreign policy.

Solzhenitsyn is unhappy with what he likes to call “democratic restraints.” Democratic “restraints” he says, keep chief executives from doing good deeds. Does he not know that restraints on the prerogatives of chief executives are one of the hallmarks of democracy? Citizens, congresses, and parliaments restrain executive authority because that is what citizens want.

One gets the impression that Solzhenitsyn’s views constitutional democracy as little more than a retrograde movement meant to prevent the accomplishment of what he calls “good deeds” by chief executives.

–Carl W. Goss

*4*
Christian Lowe is correct (Game Theories) that war games are an excellent tool for intellectual innovation, but there are at least two other essential methods of analyzing and selecting favorable war plans: The first one, called Blue Team, employs competing teams assigned to develop different plans. The second method, called Red Team, is used to predict enemy thinking.

–Shmuel L. Gordon

*5*
While it is understandable that Hugh Hewitt would want to use Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s 1978 Harvard address in support of the impending war in Iraq, it is by no means clear how the Nobel Laureate himself would view it. While he has never, to my knowledge, addressed the Iraq issue specifically in his occasional op-eds, he did touch on the issue of the Kurds in an August 1997 commentary for the Times (UK). In the piece, which was entitled “The March of the Hypocrites,” which accused the West of double standards in international policy, Solzhenitsyn wrote: “When they [the Kurds] are not being squashed by Iraq, with the tacit consent of the United States, then they are being smashed by NATO member Turkey even on non-Turkish territory, while the whole civilized world looks on with utter indifference.” In the same commentary, by the way, the erstwhile Soviet dissident all but accused the United States and its World War Two allies of war crimes for the bombings of Dresden and Hiroshima.

–Jonas Bernstein

*6*
Like Larry Miller, I too feel some responsibility for advocating war (A Last Look Back). And I don’t imagine that this is a rare emotion for folks on the pro-war side. I wish the antiwar protesters had similar worries about the consequences that flow from doing nothing about Saddam. But the reaction of the anti-Cold War left–even after the archives of the Soviet gulag were exposed–does not say much for their ability to grieve their errors–or to admit them at all.

–Brian J. Dunn

*7*
I have often wondered what Congress’s real position is regarding democracy and the rights of people in Venezuela (Thor Halvorssen, Comandante Chavez’s Friends). Would they accept, from any U.S. president, just a small percentage of what Chavez has done in Venezuela? Is Chavez’s style of democracy what they want for theirs constituents?

–Henrique Lander

*8*
Rachel DiCarlo’s The Search for the Holy Rail is right on target. As a rail operations consultant, I have seen many boondoggles proposed in recent years. Whether it is elected public officials insisting on building rail projects that s-curve through their districts, private sector consultants recommending the alternative that maximizes engineering and construction expenditures, or day-dreaming by planning staffs and self-styled “activists” that amounts to nothing more than drawing lines on a map, a great many rail projects are commanded into existence.

Just look at the commuter rail system developed in Burlington by then-governor Howard Dean. After an expenditure of over $100 million (mostly federal dollars), the system carried an average of one rider on two out of every three trips (on average the third trip ran empty). Following Dean’s departure from office, the service was quietly shut down last month.

Larger urban areas are also guilty. Despite the fact that most of the feasible routes have already been built, most metropolitan areas have billion-dollar projects lining up for federal funding. The Washington D.C. Metro network, planned in the 1960’s, was recently completed. So the transit authority in D.C. is dreaming up more routes whose ability to attract ridership is questionable.

The focus on these extensions is coming at the expense of properly managing and maintaining the existing rail routes (and rail systems are maintenance-intensive): The New York subway system today operates at lower speeds between stations than it did two generations ago. The speed limits were ordered lowered by the bureaucrats to simplify their own jobs.

–Anthony E. Waller

*9*
Thank you to Thor Halvorssen for saying exactly what all of us have been trying to tell the world about Hugo Chavez for the past four years! Please America, don’t abandon us, we are your most fervent admirers in South America.

Hugo Chavez was elected as a democrat by a country suffering from corruption, but what is happening now, is worse than anything anyone can imagine.

–Maruja Beracasa

*10*
Whether the new partial-birth ban is written narrowly enough to pass constitutional muster is an interesting discussion to have, but it seems clearly unconstitutional (Rachel DiCarlo, Try, Try Again).

Congress has no authority to regulate abortion. It in no way impacts on interstate commerce, nor is it covered by any of the other powers given to Congress by Article I of the Constitution.

Antonin Scalia has criticized the “ad hoc nullification machine” of abortion jurisprudence that liberal justices use to protect abortion at all costs. We should not have machinery of our own that ignores the Constitution to achieve our own ends.

Let’s leave this to the states.

–Adam Kwiatkowski