Debate Over U.S. Policy in Persian Gulf

In response to “Figuring the Butcher’s Bill,” by Daniel Ellsberg (Commentary, Nov. 16):

Ellsberg still doesn’t get it. The reasoning he employs is an example of a classic figurative syllogism: The Vietnam War was a bad idea. We may be headed into war with Iraq. War with Iraq is a bad idea. It follows then that unless one is an absolutist, one would be forced to acknowledge that all wars under all conditions are bad. I doubt that the Kuwaitis who are watching the plundering and dissolution of their homeland would agree with this. Ellsberg and Ron Kovic seem perpetually clothed in a sackcloth of paisley print.

What is actually clear, Mr. Ellsberg, is that the foreign policy choices being exerted are properly within the President’s domain as commander in chief and as chief executive. The preparation for war is not the act of war. The congressional leadership clearly sees this distinction.

What Ellsberg fails to remember is that the defeat of the Communists in Russia was achieved through the 40-year buildup of deterrence. One deals with despots only from a position of strength. Discussion before preparation is premature. America is now entering the end cycle of its preparation in the Persian Gulf. Let the debate continue to grow.

Yes, Ron Kovic, we remember our promise (“Didn’t we promise ourselves we would never let this happen again?”). But the parallels to Vietnam are limited. We are watching America’s commitment to that promise unfold. The loyal opposition is on the forum dais. America is listening. So is Saddam Hussein. We all pray that the sanctions will work. If they don’t? The alternative is in place.

Hussein, like the condemned prisoner, must now focus his concentration.

LELAND P. HAMMERSCHMITT

Ojai