Other views of the Middle East

Re “MIA in the Middle East,” Opinion, Jan. 9

I gather John Hannah wants the U.S. to do more in the Middle East. However, we are neglecting the needs of our own nation.

A foreign policy that protects the Middle East “gas station” is not in our best interest if it continues to cause us to inadequately address such major problems as the national debt, homelessness, jobs, greenhouse gases and environmental destruction.

Our nation left the rails when President Reagan ripped out the White House solar panels that President Carter installed. Until Hannah and others find the mind to put the train back on the track, our future is imperiled.

Stephen V. Hymowitz

Los Angeles

Hannah’s piece is a good example of what is wrong with neoconservative foreign policy: It has a simplistic, Manichean view of the world. It sees the solution to almost every problem as the application of U.S. military force.

It overestimates the effectiveness of military force and discounts diplomacy and other forms of “soft power.” It is unconcerned with local conditions, often putting the U.S. on the wrong side of local opinion. It doesn’t take into account the cost to the U.S. economy of its application. It knows no limits.

In short, it is an unrealistic policy that history has shown to be ineffective.

Gary Page

Hemet

A “benevolent imperium”? Hosni Mubarak our “most important Arab partner”? The author, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies? I think Hannah drank from the Orwellian trough, whose main ingredients are based on the formula that “war is peace and peace is war.”

By backing the Arab people rather than their autocratic monarchies, President Obama has demonstrated a mettle that conservative Republicans can only critique and never emulate.

Marc Rogers

Sherman Oaks