p> THE DAILY STANDARD welcomes letters to the editor. Letters will be edited for length and clarity and must include the writer's name, city, and state.

*1* I JUST WANTED to thank Tom Donnelly for taking the time to think about and comment on my ideas. We clearly disagree about what the present and future look like for Afghanistan, but if there is anything more needed in this country than frank debate I do not know what it is. I wanted to make several points regarding his article.

First, I never wrote that our invasion of Afghanistan was an act of "imperial hubris." What I wrote was that we made a tragic mistake in not unleashing our military to destroy al-Qaeda and the Taliban at the time we invaded. Outside of the Marines, however, our generals are a pretty politically minded and bureaucratic bunch, and are more interested in avoiding casualties than in annihilating the enemy. As a result, most of the enemy went home with their guns and we are seeing the slow emergence of a new insurgency. We often forget that it took three or four years for the Afghan's fight against the Soviets to get solidly on its feet.

I think what we saw in the Afghan election was the Pashtun tribes voting for Karzai--a Pashtun--and the minorities voting for Qannuni, in essence demarcating the sides for a likely struggle for ethnic domination.

Time is not on our side. If there is anyplace on earth where familiarity with foreigners breeds contempt, it is Afghanistan, and we have already overstayed our welcome. Also, the Afghan sense of time is extraordinarily different than the sense of time in the West. I had the honor of working with the Afghan mujahedeen for most of the 1980s, and I can tell you that when they talk of winning "soon" they are talking in terms of many years. One of my many analytic mistakes in that period was to fail to accommodate in my thinking the vast differences between the Western sense of time and that of the Afghans.

Finally, let me say that, for America's sake, I hope Donnelly is correct. I resigned from a job I loved because I thought our country was headed in the wrong direction, that we clearly misunderstood and underestimated the nature and motivation of our enemy, and that we had yet to impress our enemy--even after Afghanistan and Iraq--with our military power and willingness to be ruthless. I have spoken out for that reason, not because I am a "blame America" guy or an "appeaser." Believe me, those are pretty tough charges to accept for a guy who has been a life-long Republican.

Anyway, as I said, I hope Tom Donnelly is correct. I would be greatly delighted if my now-young grandchildren can look back and say "Geez, Grandpa was a real nutcake, nothing he said was correct," rather than "Geez, Granpa was correct and our country got sucked into a long and bloody war because it failed to understand the enemy." But, with all respect to Mr. Donnelly, I am still afraid the latter may yet be their conclusion.

--Michael F. Scheuer

*2* IRWIN STELZER's recent article on Bush's New Economy raises a couple of questions and needs one minor correction. First, while I understand the theory behind a falling U.S. dollar leading to a shrinking trade deficit, why would it? When the biggest exporters to the United States, like China, peg their currency to ours, the dollar's decline doesn't make their goods any more expensive. Goods from European exporters tend to be higher-end and their buyers are less affected by price fluctuations.

As for Social Security and private investment accounts, could another reason for the disfavor for them among legislators be that Congress regularly raids the Social Security lockbox for non-Social Security expenses? If this money were tucked away in some mutual fund it would not be available for Congress to borrow.

Finally, Stelzer's article is in need of a minor correction. Rose in "Gypsy" is not Gypsy Rose Lee. Rose is the mother of Gypsy Rose Lee. Louise is Gypsy. In the latest Broadway revival of "Gypsy," Rose was played by Tyne Daily. And no matter how wonderful an actress you may believe Ms. Daily to be, even she could not pull off playing the most successful stripper of all time.

--Aaron H. Frank

*3* WHAT A DELIGHTFUL story Larry Miller shares in his piece So Long, Johnny. In high school, I watched Johnny Carson almost every night when my parents thought I was asleep. Johnny was cool, and he was a bit naughty, but he was never vulgar or offensive (I never saw the notorious Zsa Zsa interview that was considered borderline). He brought out the best in people, and gave his audience the best entertainment. This is why he brought Miller to the couch in his Armani. Larry Miller is a great writer and comic. Many thanks for his remembrance.

--Art Zeidman

*4* WHAT A GREAT article! I've always appreciated Larry Miller's articles, but this one is by far his best. I loved Johnny Carson like many people did worldwide, and I've seen all the accolades and eulogies that have poured out over the airwaves and print media these past few days. But nothing has stirred me like Larry's piece. Good job, Larry, and many thanks.

--Lon Whitson

*5* I JUST READ Henry Payne's article titled Hybrid Liberalism. Why does he have to turn an important article into a political statement? I'm a conservative who, if I were American, would support the Bush agenda. But the subject of this article has nothing to do with who buys into the concept of more miles for the gallon. Please. It has to do with lowering our dependence on foreign oil. Helping the environment is an added benefit. Gasoline/hybrid automobiles are a great response until hydrogen automobiles become widely available. Add the concept of solar hydrogen to hybrid technology and you have a technology for the future. The hybrid technology is available now, with or without government support. Solar hydrogen will be commercially available later in 2005 and widely available as soon as suppliers can tool up and build the panels. This is now happening in several countries.

Solar hydrogen can be generated at home or on the road. A typical garage covered with solar hydrogen panels can produce enough hydrogen for about 9,000 to 14,000 miles, depending on the automobile. Couple that with hybrid technology and you will increase output by about 75 percent. Add more panels and you can do even better. For example, a 2,400 square foot house covered with solar hydrogen panels available later this year will produce enough hydrogen to travel about 40,000 miles when coupled with hybrid technology.

Hybrid technology is a critical part of a successful, high-mileage hydrogen automobile technology. Hybrid technology simply makes any fuel engine in an automobile more efficient. Hydrogen is a fuel, similar to gasoline, but has many advantages over gasoline and oil. Coupled with hybrid technology it will stagger everyone in a few years.

Say what they will, but GM better get their act together quickly, or they will be left behind. That is very unfortunate. But Toyota, Honda, and others are not waiting around for them. Those companies are leading the way. Ford and Chrysler are trying to catch up. GM is not even in the game.

One last point. As for a federal subsidy of $2,000 per year, the American auto industry has depended on subsidies for many years. Chrysler was saved by one. If the federal government really wants to reduce their dependence on foreign oil and clean up the environment, they should probably increase subsidies too. Perhaps $5,000 would be more appropriate.

--John Crittenden

*6* I LOVED HUGH Hewitt's description of what bloggers do (a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/179kaaqu.asp" target=_blank>Big Media's 40 Days and 40 Nights). That is the main reason I read blogs--for guidance through the mountains of information available on the internet. I try out different guides and I hang out with the ones I find I can trust. If they take odd paths up the mountain, at least I know that and can choose that if I want. Hewitt wrote: "Folks who follow such things will pick their own interpreters." Very, very true. And I love Hewitt's interaction with Jonathan Rauch and his forthright response. Talk about checks and balances, editors and accountability. Hewitt and the blogosphere have provided what The Atlantic could not. It took only a few hours to give him valuable input to refine and clarify his ideas and get them out to a vastly larger audience. He is to be thoroughly commended for his response.

Thanks, Hugh!! You've inspired me.

--Jeff Moore

*7* HAD I KNOWN the PBS film Fidel Castro, reviewed by Duncan Currie, would be as balanced as it was, I would have tuned in at the beginning. As it was, I picked it up as Fidel was in the mountains in 1957-58. I know the basic story, but appreciated the comprehensive presentation. Two things struck me:

First, how well Castro spoke English-slowly and carefully, but correctly and very effectively. I was very surprised at how much he sounded like the "Jose Jiminez" of the old Bill Dana comedy bits. El Jefe, indeed.

Second, I watched Castro's eyes, facial expressions, and gestures--the delicate fidgeting with the microphones, his bombastic body language as he spoke to the press and to the crowds. It was eerily reminiscent of the close-ups of Hitler one sees in Triumph of the Will and other films. It is Castro who seemed entranced--entranced by the power that he had over huge mobs of people. There seemed to be something unbalanced about the man from the very start.

--Bill Thompson

*8* TERRY EASTLAND's discussion of bias at CBS was comprehensive. The CBS panel backs conveniently into a tautology when it asserts that bias did not "drive" the National Guard segment. Obviously the "driver" for any story is the story. Bias, on the other hand, is merely a bias-- meaning a tendency, a predisposition, or a willingness, from story to story, to present one side or point of view in a better light than another. Bias is in the background for 60 Minutes stories as a class, and not the specific driver of any one of them. Instead of asking whether bias drove the story, the panel should have asked whether bias influenced the timing, tone, or content of the story. If that were the question, the panel's answer could not have been so pat.

--Leighton Anderson

*9* I READ DEAN Barnett's Taking Kos Seriously with great interest. Let us hope that Mr. Barnett's premise regarding Kos's growing influence over Democratic party strategy proves correct. By forcing all Democrats to dart left and align themselves more closely with the likes of Barbara Boxer and Howard Dean, Kos ultimately serves to further highlight the disparity between liberal Democratic ideology and the views of average Americans, be they residents of red states or blue. Republicans would be wise to keep a close eye on this trend and be poised to take full advantage of this disconnect. Perhaps it's time to start a "Draft Lieberman for the Republican Party" campaign? Or, better yet, a "Draft Lieberman for 2008" campaign to force the wayward drift of the Democratic Party into even starker relief.

--Josh Doolittle

*10* While I agree with many points in Stephen Schwartz's article Justice Out of Balance, I would advise him to stop short of considering Albania a Muslim country. As someone who was born and grew up there, I am certain that it is not a Muslim country. One point that Schwartz might also be missing in his article is that by helping the Albanians--probably the only national group that hold sincere pro-American sentiments in the region--elect a more transparent government, the United States will gain not only a friend, but an effective one at that in its war against terror. I am very surprised that it has taken so long to stop the developments Schwartz mentions, which have been in full force since 2001 and probably prior. --Iris Pilika