American leadership
Regarding “Ukraine’s Zelenskyy joins a meeting of global defense leaders to make a direct plea for military aid,” (Oct. 11): With America committing to supplying Israel and Ukraine in their respective wars, it appears that America is once again (as President Franklin D. Roosevelt put it) the “great arsenal of democracy.” The Hamas attack on Israel will have reverberations beyond the Middle East.
Hamas’ inventory of rockets, arms and ammunition is being depleted rapidly, with no clear way to be replenished. Israel, by comparison, has a commitment from America to be supplied with what it needs. But Ukraine is still fighting the Russian invasion. If America (as some Republicans insist) should stop helping Ukraine, then Ukraine will fall to Russia. Then President Vladimir Putin will no doubt be quite willing to help resupply Hamas (in the guise of humanitarian aid).
We are faced with a similar situation as one the Greatest Generation faced. The big question is: What will this generation do? Will we, as President John F. Kennedy once said, “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty?” Or will we revert to self-isolation? The answer lies in the hands of the American people who will decide through their elected representatives in Congress.
Gonzalo Martinez, La Porte
Some perspective is in order since this article suggests that there is some tradeoff between Ukraine and the war against Hamas.
In Vietnam, the Soviets and the Chinese rather brilliantly defeated the U.S. without firing a shot, simply by providing North Vietnam with money and war materiel. We have an opportunity in Ukraine to defeat Russia in the same way. Any rational assessment of the Russian invasion will conclude that stopping Putin’s expansionist tendencies at the Ukraine border will save many lives and money compared to a later war defending eastern Europe. Supporting Ukraine is both a necessity and an opportunity.
The barbaric Hamas assaults on innocent civilians and unsuspecting Israeli soldiers is quite a different problem. It is the subhuman brutality of these assaults that mark Hamas as a terrorist organization. But let’s not forget that many innocent Palestinians are caught in the middle. Sadly, after over 75 years of ethnic cleansing and the most notorious land grab in history, any hope for ordinary Gaza citizens to obtain an economic and political future has been decimated by Hamas. We must support Israel’s counterattack against Hamas both as retaliation and as a necessary step toward securing a better future for Gaza.
Michael Douglas Gilbert, Houston
Regarding “Biden will head to Israel and Jordan as concerns mount that Israel-Hamas conflict will spread,” (Oct. 16): Joe Biden has unequivocally decried the brutal atrocities Hamas inflicted on Israeli citizens. He has also sent the U.S. Navy and Marines to tamp down the likely spread of violence in the explosive region. But I expect more.
I expect Biden to tell Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in private, that if he starves and bombs hundreds of thousands of captive Palestinian civilians, he will not do so in our name, and that the U.S. will publicly disavow, oppose and withdraw military support in response to any such actions. No doubt Netanyahu is under tremendous pressure from an understandably angry, grieving and frightened Israeli public to redress these horrors. The U.S. does not command the Israeli military, but we do have control over which responses we support and which we do not. Brutal retaliation involving massive civilian casualties is a foreign policy proven to be a disastrous tactical and moral failure. On that note, this is evidence of the mortal danger of electing a commander-in-chief who touts “retribution” as a guiding philosophy.
Maureen Wharton, Houston