A Lunar Race Our Feb. 5 cover story on the moon race inspired patriotic reader feedback. “China has a right to beef up its defense system,” wrote one. Another said, “India’s been deploying satellites for 25 years.” An American, however, urged spending on national health insurance, not the moon.
Racing to Revisit the Moon In your feb. 5 cover story, “Race to the Moon,” you write, “And last week an Indian flight successfully deployed four satellites, giving Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s audacious promise in 2003 to send a spacecraft to the moon by 2008 at least a patina of realism.” But I would like to point out that India’s success was not in deploying satellites—India has been doing that for more than 25 years. The success was in safely bringing back one of the four satellites it launched. Abdul Latheef North York, Canada
I’m astounded by your contention that the new Chinese antisatellite program could turn out to be a serious mistake. What Western superpowers consider a mistake could well be a stunning achievement for an emerging Eastern nation. Like many other countries, China has every right to beef up its defense system as a carefully calculated measure not just to protect its own national interests but also to enhance its gigantic economic prowess. As Western hawks manifest their objective in the continuing and unsettling war in Iraq, there is ever more pressing and urgent reason for regimes like Beijing’s to be vigilant. The West should reflect upon its own covert expansion of high-tech modern militaries before pointing fingers at others. Chen Venn Tzu Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
The United States can afford wars and trips to space but not national health insurance for its citizens? I live in a foreign country that provides me with inexpensive medical care. When will my fellow Americans put themselves ahead of moons and planets? Michael G. Driver Ichihara City, Japan
The Dick-as-Darth Saga Vice President Dick Cheney talks about believing in Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment (“The Man Without Doubt,” Feb. 5). But the world would be a better place if he believed in the Ten Commandments that go before that one. He lies when he blames bad intelligence for what went wrong in Iraq: it has been proved that secret services the world over, including the CIA, knew the truth. He should have known what so many others knew as far back as 1999 about the consequences of an invasion of Iraq. It was said then that chaos would result, even with 500,000 soldiers present for years. He is an intelligent man who knows these things and chooses not to tell. But then, what would you expect from a man who destroyed Iraq, made Afghanistan a giant heroin-producing factory and filled the coffers of Halliburton, the company he ran before sending the U.S. Army to invade Iraq? Compared with other political scandals, this one stands out as the mother of all crimes. Even Darth Vader was a good man compared with Dick Cheney. Willy Van Damme Dendermonde-Grembergen, Belgium
Iraq’s Shiite VP on the ‘Surge’ Lally Weymouth’s interview with Adel Abdul Mahdi was highly informative ( " ‘Of Course We Worry’," Feb. 5). But is the Iraqi government capable of governing the haphazard situation in that country when it cannot even judge whether President Bush’s new tactics would bring about any significant change in the menace? That government is watching the show, remaining neutral and not fulfilling the basic requirement of democracy—namely, considering the people’s opinion. It seems to be a set of puppets, lacking knowledge, making no judgment and taking no decisive action against the prevailing situation, thus permitting Iraq to get ruined. Or, I suppose it, too, bows before the influential U.S. forces. Something must be done about the people controlling Iraq. Only then can some positive result emerge from the tactical game played by America. Ramla Mustafa Karachi, Pakistan
How to win the Iraq war and the world’s hearts and minds quickly? The U.S. government should admit to the Iraqi people that we made a mistake on the WMD, and apologize for interfering in Muslim lands where we don’t belong and for not organizing a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq. We should explain that we did all this because we were attacked on our own soil by Osama bin Laden, who irrationally believed that this was the way to stop the United States from interfering in Arab lands, but that this ironically had the opposite effect. We should also tell the Iraqis that, instead of spending another $100 billion to forcibly try to stop them from killing each other, we will give them the $100 billion for schools, hospitals and farm equipment if they stop killing each other and live in tolerance of their differences and in peace with their neighbors in the Middle East. George Sanders Larchmont, New York
A Lady Who Is a First in Japan “The First Lady Steps Out” (Feb. 5) was an interesting feature about Japan’s Akie Abe, wife of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. As First Lady, she has rejected the traditional backstage role of prime ministers’ wives. I like her but fear she may not long enjoy her new role if the ruling party loses the next election and the Abe administration collapses. He enjoyed 70 percent favorable ratings when he became P.M. last year. But his popularity has been steadily declining: it now stands at less than 40 percent. His unfavorable ratings have surpassed the favorable ones because his policy seems too conservative compared with his predecessor Juni-chiro Koizumi’s. What is worse, his apparent indecisiveness and constant focus on the power balance within the Liberal Democratic Party have contributed to the deterioration of Japanese politics. The scandals of his ministers and his lack of leadership have resulted in the people’s losing trust in him. Takahito (Ted) Miyazawa Odawara, Japan
Regarding your article about Akie Abe, wife of Shinzo Abe, the Prime Minister of Japan, please note that Japan has an empress, who is the First Lady, not the wife of the prime minister. NEWSWEEK should not use the term “First Lady” in its American context for other countries. Arzmi Yaacob Subang Jaya, Malaysia
A Plea for Diplomacy A troop surge in Iraq is not necessarily a tragic mistake, but the exclusion of Iran and Syria in the collaboration to stabilize Iraq certainly is (" ‘Surge’ Strategy," Jan. 8). How can the Bush administration ignore the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group? From the reception the Iraqi president received during his visit to Iran, it would seem that Iran recognizes his government. Further diplomacy could obtain the recognition of both Iran and Syria without too much difficulty. A military boost may help with security in the short term, but the ultimate solution will come only through diplomacy. Chan Hintung Hong Kong
Americans nearly impeached Richard Nixon because he was implicated in a bungled theft of political material. They did impeach Bill Clinton for a sexual indiscretion. Now President Bush is defying the world by illegally invading Iraq, without U.N. sanction, for phony WMD and antiterrorist charges, causing the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis and 3,000 Americans, and threatening to destabilize the Middle East by spreading the conflict to Iran. Is he fit to continue as president and commander in chief? If America seeks to provide leadership in a troubled world, it should impeach Bush by trying him for war crimes. It should apologize and make restitution to the people of Iraq. Jim Poushinsky Ottawa, Canada
India’s Information Act The right to information act is one of the miracles of Indian democracy (“The Paper Chase,” Dec. 18). That government officials can be held responsible for their actions should serve as a lesson to those Indians who, coveting China’s economic growth, wish for authoritarian rule. Can a Chinese national ever ask his government uncomfortable questions without fear? Indians should be grateful to live in a free country, with civil liberties and the right to question, even criticize, the seniormost government official without fear. J. Shankaranarayanan Hyderabad, India
The Most Dangerous Man? I understand that Moqtada al-Sadr is responsible at least in part for the current chaotic situation in Iraq (“The Most Dangerous Man in Iraq,” Dec. 4). And I agree with your writers that the United States should not have underestimated him in the earlier stages of the war. But I also think Americans should not overestimate him, either. Removing al-Sadr from the scene would not lead to a solution for the problems in Iraq: after all, neither the capture of Saddam Hussein nor the death of Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi improved Iraqi security at all. Kyoichi Kunimi Fujisawa City, Japan
The most dangerous man in Iraq is certainly not the man pictured on NEWSWEEK’s Dec. 4 cover—Moqtada al-Sadr. I believe that President Bush and his gang are the most hated people on earth today. Many people consider President Bush a coldblooded war criminal who has committed crimes against humanity. During the American occupation of Iraq—I would not call it “liberation”—three times more innocent Iraqis have been murdered than during the whole of Saddam’s time. Talk about ethnic cleansing—the United States is an expert on that. M. Petridis Athens, Greece
