Letters - Letter to the Editor

National Review, Oct 14, 2002

-- You owe Sen. Chuck Hagel -- a man with more combat experience than yoyour entire masthead combined -- a profound apology for the gratuitous and cheap designation ("R., France") you gave him in your Aug. 12 issue. While you deplore Sen. Hagel's ad hominem remarks about Richard Perle, Mr. Perle and his followers have branded all those who disagree with them "Chamberlainites" so often that your own John O'Sullivan was prompted to defend Mr. Chamberlain's record. If Mr. Perle can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen.

Sen. Hagel's point, however, is not simply a personal insult. War is a savage teacher, as Thucydides tells us. In the words of that appeasement wimp, Robert Edouard Lee, "It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it." When nations decide to go to war, they should do so with a sober understanding of what they are doing. The excessive rhetoric of many pro-war partisans -- as in the Pentagon briefing Mr. Perle arranged by a former follower of Lyndon LaRouche, who named Egypt the "prize" of a general Mideast war -- suggests a cavalier attitude that has no place in this debate. Under these circumstances, it is appropriate to question what Mr. Perle knows of the horrors of war, and what sacrifices he personally is willing to make, and it is especially so for a combat veteran like Sen. Hagel.

Having been trapped in the dust cloud on 9/11, having witnessed the deaths of thousands (including friends), I would love to get my hands on Osama bin Laden and his gang. Show me proof that Saddam Hussein was involved in the plot, and I would not favor handing him over to any international criminal court. But we need proof, not speculation. If we go to war, let us do so with real, not Dutch, courage.

Paul Windels III

New York, N.Y.

-- The Editors Reply: The question of whether NR should apologize to ChChuck Hagel is fraught with difficulties and possible unintended consequences. Yes, Hagel's staff might initially cheer such an apology. But what would be the long-term consequences? Would they come to expect apologies for any critical reference to their boss in any publication? These are questions to which NR does not now have answers, but feels obligated to ask. Also, NR would never "go it alone" on an apology. We would first have to consult with our allied magazines. Will The American Spectator, The Weekly Standard, The American Enterprise, et al. back us on an apology? Let's find out before doing anything precipitous. Finally, these sorts of journalistic decisions are best left to people with journalism experience. Sure, it's easy for others to say a national magazine should make an apology -- but what do they know firsthand about the burdens and challenges of editing such a magazine? So, an apology might indeed be called for once "the case" has been more thoroughly made. But for now, inaction, indecision, and empty posturing strike us as the only prudent course.

-- Thanks to Jay Nordlinger for his masterpiece on Tiger Woods (("Hunting Tiger," Sept. 16).

As one who caddied at the Austin Country Club in the 1930s, I am familiar with the high standards that should prevail in golf, and I certainly hope that Mr. Woods can continue his independence from and superiority over those who try to engage him in social conflict.

Frank W. George

Vestavia Hills, Ala.

--Cheers for Tiger Woods, that amazing young man! It seems that while trtraining him for a golfing career, someone forgot to teach him to hate.

Marion von Mering

New Salem, Mass.

-- The picture caption refers to Tiger Woods as the world's greatest atathlete. Come on, Mr. Nordlinger. I can accept a certain amount of hyperbole as journalistic license, but this statement is flagrantly egregious.

Many would agree with me that golf is not a sport, but a game. Walking three and a half miles while swinging an occasional golf club does not qualify as athleticism.

Lawrence D. Bauer

Rochester, N.Y.