United States Involvement in Mideast

It is one thing to caution against the use of military intervention where capabilities are inadequate, strategic goals are insufficiently clear, or the consequences of action outweigh its benefits.

However, for Henry F. Jackson to argue against any American intervention, anywhere, any time (“Planting a Big Stick in Quicksand,” Commentary, Aug. 13), is simply wrong; for him to advocate a foreign policy based on the appeasement of rulers like Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro is foolish; and for him to characterize these little Hitlers and miniature Stalins as “a new generation of Third World leaders” is downright weird.

I am not worried that rulers like Hussein are “inspired by ideologies that sometimes demonize America” and are “willing to challenge American supremacy,” whatever that means. I am simply worried when they attempt to grab much of the world’s oil supplies.

Jackson’s intolerance of any attempt by this country to defend its interests shows that you don’t have to be a Third World dictator to be “inspired by ideologies that . . . demonize America,” just a third-rate academic.

GREG MARCHESE

Northridge