‘On the Waterfront’

I clearly recall my own reaction to President Lyndon Johnson’s reaction to the Tet Offensive in Vietnam in early 1968. Soon after Tet, we soldiers in Vietnam knew that regardless of the number of North Vietnamese and Vietcong killed, they had won a big moral victory. And we knew from reports (even in the Stars & Stripes) that President Johnson refused to permit the bombing of key targets in the North including Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor.

It was believed – and turned out to be true – that he was afraid of doing anything that would bring the Chinese and Russians into the war (they already provided weapons and supplies). Some of us wondered why we had entered a war, knowing that North Vietnam’s allies were China and Russia, when our leaders didn’t have the stomach to take on China and Russia. We also wondered if we were in Vietnam for some secret political purpose that had nothing to do with victory, moral principle, or any other stated purpose.

Now this Dubai Ports World deal with the United Arab Emirates gives me that same sick feeling that maybe American and Iraqi lives are being sacrificed for some secret political and/or financial purposes – that have nothing to do with winning a war. [“On the Waterfront,” Editorial, February 22, 2006].

Unlike Presidents Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush, President Ronald Reagan (like Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and Harry Truman) always clearly defined the enemy and kept the enemy in his sights. He is properly credited with policies, actions, attitude and guts that led to the collapse of communism and the end of the cold war. Most of us never doubted that Ronald Reagan would have used nuclear weapons if it became absolutely necessary.

When he made a promise or a threat, it was crystal clear, and he knew how to pronounce the word nuclear.

Whether or not the Dubai Ports World deal poses a threat to our national security, it sends the wrong message, and it’s critically important that we send clear messages to both our terrorist enemies and to the American people.

Furthermore, most Americans just don’t trust the Arabs, and with very good reason. President Bush should wake up or resign.

MICHAEL J.GORMAN
Whitestone, N.Y.

‘Big Tobacco Challenged’

The left and the right are too engaged in political polemics to make any progress on tobacco policy, according to a report, “Bridging the Ideological Divide: An Analysis of Views on Tobacco Policy,” published in 2000 by the American Council on Science and Health [“Big Tobacco Challenged in Suit by Conservative Seniors Group,” February 23, 2006].

The left accuses conservatives of being paid fronts for the tobacco industry, unwilling to condone lawsuits against the industry, while conservatives accuse liberals of using anti-tobacco measures as a way of increasing the role of government in our lives.

Six years have passed since that report, which is still relevant today, and until now, we haven’t seen much progress. And the public is losing out every day that political factions fight each other instead of focusing on what should be the common goal: reducing smoking related illness and death. The United Seniors Association, or USA, lawsuit is the first glimmer of hope we’ve seen since we published the paper.

Art Linkletter, who serves as National Chairman of the conservative USA, had it right: “America’s taxpayers should not be paying the health care costs under Medicare that tobacco companies actually owe due to their proven misconduct over decades. It is morally wrong to force hardworking Americans to be the insurer for wrongdoers.”

This suit is just one step, but it is progress. Groups on the left too, must look for new approaches and be willing to work with in good faith with those of differing ideologies, so that we can reduce the toll of smoking. Politics too, it seems, can be addictive and harmful.

JEFF STIER
Associate Director
American Council on Science and Health
Manhattan

---

Please address letters intended for publication to the Editor of The New York Sun. Letters may be sent by e-mail to editor@nysun.com, by facsimile to 212-608-7348, or post to 105 Chambers Street, New York City 10007. Please include a return address and daytime telephone number. Letters may be edited.