TERRORISTS AT SEA
SETH CROPSEY wrote in his article "Don't Give Up the Ships" (November 19) that "No terrorists have struck from the sea." This will be news to the United States Navy, which has been the target of at least two recent attempted seaborne terrorist attacks, one of them successful. Cropsey may have forgotten al Qaeda's attack-by-sea that nearly sunk the USS Cole and killed 17 of her crew in 2000, but I suspect most Americans have not.
The list of terrorists who have "struck from the sea" must include the 2002 attack on the French supertanker Limburg, which killed one merchant sailor and spilled 90,000 barrels of oil into the Gulf of Aden. Further examples include the attack on the Achille Lauro, in which one American was killed in 1985, as well as the ongoing operations of Islamic (and sometimes overtly al Qaeda affiliated) high seas pirates off the African coast, in the Strait of Malacca, and in the Philippine archipelago. And what of the seaborne smuggling of weapons among Middle Eastern terrorist groups and proliferators, as demonstrated by the Karine-A incident and the interdiction of North Korean merchant vessels carrying advanced ballistic missiles to rogue regimes?
Not only have the high seas been an important front for terrorist activity and attacks, the oceans remain the last line of defense against terrorists seeking to detonate a potential atomic weapon in the United States. Such a device would almost certainly have to reach the North American continent by sea. Only the United States Navy and Coast Guard stand in the way of a nuclear-armed terrorist who intends to explode his bomb in Los Angeles, Washington, New York, Chicago, or even Duluth, all cities which can be reached by oceangoing vessels.
The United States Navy was created to combat Islamic terrorism on the high seas, and today our Navy finds itself increasingly engaged in a renewed fight against Islamic terrorists and allied pirates who still seek to strike from the sea.
R. SCOTT ROGERS
Alexandria, Va.
SETH CROPSEY's claim that terrorists have not "struck from the sea" implies that the Navy is not involved in any maritime actions in Iraq, but this is simply not true.
I served my last tour in the Navy operating in Iraqi waters at sea and up and down Iraq's rivers. In April of 2004, a U.S. Navy PC, the Firebolt, successfully stopped a terrorist attack on an Iraqi oil platform; Coast Guardsman Nathan Bruckenthal and sailors Michael Pernaselli and Christopher Watts were all killed or died later from wounds inflicted upon them in this attack.
I will never forget those shipmates of mine who lost their lives there.
ANTHONY BUCH
Oak Harbor, Wash.
SETH CROPSEY RESPONDS: These criticisms are fair: There have been several terrorist incidents at sea. But none approached the scope of the 9/11 attacks. The attack on the USS Cole in October 2000--as I argued publicly at the time--was an act of war directed against U.S. military whose duty took them in harm's way. Had that attack, as well as those that preceded it, been treated as acts of war--rather than as crimes--the chances of a large-scale 9/11 attack would have been greatly diminished. However, I stand by my point that Americans generally are not aware of the Navy's contribution to the current Middle Eastern wars, and the Navy leadership's rightful concerns about this would be better addressed by reminding the nation of the Navy's broad and enduring strategic value--which has long included crisis response and humanitarian assistance--than by redefining maritime strategy as a cooperative venture aimed at preventing conflict.
NOW, THAT'S THE TICKET
WILLIAM KRISTOL offered great advice in his editorial that suggested the Republican presidential nominee (unless it's pro-choice Rudy Giuliani) should consider running on a ticket with Joe Lieberman as vice president ("Say It's So, Joe," November 19). I have been saying for over two years the best ticket for America would be McCain/Lieberman. They would be a lame duck administration from day one, and very little would get done during the first half of their term while both sides fought each other in the White House. But I think by the second half America would follow their lead in breaking up the status quo of Washington politics. It would be either the birth of, or the alternative to, a third party.
I returned this year from three years working as a civilian with the police in Iraq where I had become as angry with the Republican party as I was with the Democrats. I was on the ground as the politics of the war in Washington adversely affected the actual war in Iraq in numerous ways. While most of that politicking was dished out by the Democrats, many Republicans folded when it came time to hold firm--all in the name of election or reelection. While I still consider myself a Republican and vote that way, I think for the good of the nation there needs to be a dramatic shift in the political paradigm. A mixed ticket of two middle of the road candidates may do the trick. It certainly couldn't get worse.
I was, and am still, a Bush supporter. I think he was the right man at the right time and took a bold risk when he chose to liberate Iraq--our only real option in order to prosecute the war on terror. He has made several mistakes along the way, but I believe he was and remains on the right path overall. The mistakes he made weren't the biggest problems for the war; it was the lack of support here at home that actually turned the tide over there. I watched it happen. Iraqis, and everyone in the Middle East for that matter, don't follow whom they like. They follow whom they respect or in many cases fear. In the beginning we had their respect. They were in awe of us. As support for the war diminished, their respect disappeared at a proportional rate. I watched it happen daily, weekly, monthly and then yearly. Shame on all politicians of either stripe that sold us out for their own careers.
Kudos to Senator Lieberman for his bold speech and to Kristol for bringing it to attention. Please do not publish my full name for security reasons; I am scheduled to redeploy to either Afghanistan or Iraq in January 2008.
NAME WITHHELD
PONDERING POVERTY
JOEL SCHWARTZ's review of my book The Persistence of Poverty ("Poverty of Ideas," November 5) is generally fair and accurate, as one would expect from Schwartz. However, Schwartz says that I support the main hypothesis of the book (that the marginal utility of deficient consumption is increasing, not diminishing) only by a questionable analogy between poor people and people suffering from bee stings.
Readers of THE WEEKLY STANDARD might like to know that I don't rest my case on this analogy at all.
For one thing, I devote a number of pages to showing that such basic goods as living space, transportation, leisure, and opportunities to participate in community life have increasing marginal utility when these goods are being used or consumed at insufficient levels. I do not argue by analogy in these pages, but rather I remind readers of experiences that will be immediately familiar to them. In a nutshell, I show that deficits of these basics bring troubles, and troubles (like other stimuli) have diminishing marginal impact; so these basics at insufficient levels have increasing marginal impact.
In addition I devote numerous pages to exposing the false reasoning that supports the contrary, textbook thesis (that the marginal utility of consumption for poor people is diminishing). Finally I show that my hypothesis makes sense of the behavior more parsimoniously than the alternatives.
America is in the middle of the wrong debate about poverty. Instead of arguing about whether the behavior of the poor is truly at odds with the textbook definition of economic rationality or only seemingly at odds with that definition, we should be questioning the validity of the textbook definition of economic rationality itself. It's time for a revision of conventional microeconomics.
CHARLES KARELIS
Washington, D.C.
TREATING MENTAL ILLNESS
WILLIAM ANDERSON's review of Thomas Szasz's book Coercion as Cure is excellent ("Insanity Defense," November 12). In the sixties I was temporarily taken in by Szasz's The Myth of Mental Illness, but within several years I outgrew that immature stage of my professional development as a psychologist. I then chose the more difficult path of discernment, doing the best I could to make accurate diagnoses of mental illness. Later I took on the even more difficult issues of subtle differentiation of authentic impairment from use of diagnosis as excuses by patients seeking the benefits of disability. I am not speaking of malingering, but of the tendency to cling to mental problems to keep disability checks coming in.
CARL E. BEGLEY
Jacksonville, Fla.
IN HIS wholesale dismissal of Thomas Szasz's work, William Anderson writes the following: "Psychiatrists try to apply scientific medicine in the service of ameliorating disturbances of thinking, feeling, and action brought about by disturbances of brain function." His admission that their "results are often less than satisfactory" glosses over the fact that psychiatrists themselves often bring on those disturbances. No one, including Szasz, denies that psychiatrists want to help us. As to the question of how (and what if anything to prescribe), few seem to agree about much of anything except that we need them.
Thomas Szasz likes to say hard things plainly. Naturally, his views are unpopular: He has taken a courageous stance in exposing certain past and present psychiatric abuses, and by so doing, rendered an invaluable service to troubled people in search of competent professional help. Those who read him carefully will find guidelines for what to avoid in a psychiatrist.
CAROL HEBALD
New York, N.Y.
GEORGIA ON OUR MINDS
IRAKLY ARESHIDZE is right to criticize Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili's decision to declare a 15-day state of emergency in Georgia and shut down the independent TV station Imedi ("The Bloom is Off the Rose Revolution," November 26). But comparing Saakashvili to the likes of "the strongmen leading Pakistan, Venezuela, and Russia" shows a lack of judgment about what real despots are like and a failure to appreciate Georgia's progress in advancing civil rights, fighting corruption, and getting the country going economically since the revolution. Should the United States and Europe do more to deepen the democratic gains there? Absolutely. But part of that process must also include an opposition that is principled, not personality driven, and willing to adhere to constitutional norms themselves.
GARY SCHMITT
Washington, D.C.