Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 360 Editor's Choice: 12
-
In the same edition: O'Hanlon and Kagan Prescription for Pakistan
[Read the article: The Tom Friedman of 2002 has not gone anywhere]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In another column in today's NYTimes Week in Review, Michael O'Hanlon and Frederick Kagan consider the difficulties in Pakistan.
Their solution?
US military forces to "guard" the Pakistani nuclear arsenal.
One possible plan would be a Special Forces operation with the limited goal of preventing Pakistan’s nuclear materials and warheads from getting into the wrong hands. Given the degree to which Pakistani nationalists cherish these assets, it is unlikely the United States would get permission to destroy them. Somehow, American forces would have to team with Pakistanis to secure critical sites and possibly to move the material to a safer place.
For the United States, the safest bet would be shipping the material to someplace like New Mexico; but even pro-American Pakistanis would be unlikely to cooperate. More likely, we would have to settle for establishing a remote redoubt within Pakistan, with the nuclear technology guarded by elite Pakistani forces backed up (and watched over) by crack international troops. It is realistic to think that such a mission might be undertaken within days of a decision to act. The price for rapid action and secrecy, however, would probably be a very small international coalition.
A second, broader option would involve supporting the core of the Pakistani armed forces as they sought to hold the country together in the face of an ineffective government, seceding border regions and Al Qaeda and Taliban assassination attempts against the leadership. This would require a sizable combat force — not only from the United States, but ideally also other Western powers and moderate Muslim nations.
Let's see--Pakistan has spent decades acquiring nuclear weapons. They see them as a primary deterrent to India, who has not signed the non-proliferation treaty, and to the US has given nuclear technology support.
So the deal here is that the US would cut a deal to install a puppet the core of the Pakistani armed forces (last I looked, that was Musharref), using the Pakistani nuclear arsenal as a pretext for doing so.
And the US would do this secretly, of course, because speed and stealth would be necessary.
These people get paid for this? I don't mean the 150 bucks for the column. They do this for a living?!? And they haven't noticed that this whole military option thing hasn't worked out so well? And the NYTimes editorial page editors haven't thought that perhaps other voices might be heard on this subject?
Oh, and in other news, MoDo has another Clinton as dominatrix column.
They wonder why circulation is plummeting.
-
@Iokannan in the Well
[Read the article: The Tom Friedman of 2002 has not gone anywhere]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Probably would burst into tears. How amusing.
The guard of the doors to the Emerald City (also played by Frank Morgan) comes immediately to mind.
-
Um, Too Many People Want To Get Married?
[Read the article: Brian Williams: "Marriage is under attack"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Maybe if all those gay people get married, then we'll run out of marriage certificates?
Or maybe Rudy!! is setting a bad example by both screwing around AND getting married over and over again--depleting the marriage certificate supply?
-
@pintobean
[Read the article: Brian Williams: "Marriage is under attack"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Actually divorce rates are down, pintobean.
Cohabitation is common among young people, which arguably has had the net effect of strengthening marriage, as the practice became routine.
It's probably the case that later marriage has led to lowering divorce rates; I am still amazed that my mother got married at the age of 19, and had three kids before she turned 23.
-
OK A Serious Comment
[Read the article: Brian Williams: "Marriage is under attack"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I see that people are taking this seriously.
Seriously, what Williams is saying with the "attack on marriage" phrase is "In an era where Ward and June's marriage is becoming increasingly rare..."
Which is a stupid thing to say. The increase in divorce rates that stemmed from women being able to (often barely) make a living on their own took place in the 70s and 80s, not now.
And he is, of course, reflecting the wingnut theme of a society being destroyed by something or other and the absence of traditional family values and similar claptrap. As someone else noted, this has something to do with fear on the part of a small number of Americans.
But what is really appalling is that he thinks an exemplar of the old system of marriage for life can be found in the British Royal Family, which has done as much damage to the institution as anybody. Given Prince Phillip's reputation as a randy adulterer, it's hard to believe that Williams really means to hold Queen Elizabeth up as an example of traditional values.
And the rest of them? The next generation? As Jed Clampett used to say, woooo-dogey.
-
Sorry I missed this yesterday
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Because if you simply tackle all the receivers and sit on them after they run five yards, you can probably also lengthen the time the play takes, as the quarterback can't find an open receiver.
Of course, the offensive response would be to immediately throw the ball away as soon as the illegal contact took place shortening the length of time the play takes.
And we'd have added another completely non-football,rules-exploiting element to the last minute of a football game.
-
@Anonymous: Williams and Springsteen
[Read the article: Brian Williams: "Marriage is under attack"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I saw springsteen for the first time in 2004 on a bill that was touring as a Kerry fundraiser. It was quite a show, John Fogerty, REM, a good band I'm forgetting the name of, and Springsteen.
Throughout, the show was decidedly a rally.
There were a number of people there just for Springsteen. (I hadn't known that there were standard responses to songs that had evolved among his fans, which were interesting to see.) Those fans, mostly middle aged men, seemed decidedly uncomfortable with the political rally elements of the show. I don't think that Bruce's fans really share Bruce's politics.