Letters to the Editor: Political blowback is nothing compared to international instability

To the editor: Columnist Jonah Goldberg talks about the political blowback of the attack on Iran (“Trump needs to get ready for the blowback,” March 3). He says there will be a price to pay because of Congress’ refusal to rein in the Trump administration as it will open the door for abuse for future administrations. But what about the more important impact that this administration is having beyond the U.S.?

By initiating a war without, in my opinion, any legitimate legal reason, this administration puts the U.S. and the world at greater peril because of the erosion of international law. For instance, how can we have any legitimate argument against Russian President Vladimir Putin invading Ukraine if our leaders’ rationale for our invasion was that President Trump “had a feeling” that Iran was going to strike the U.S. imminently?

So Goldberg may talk of domestic political blowback, but by blatantly ignoring international law, this administration puts the security of the whole world at risk.

Wayne Morgan, Ventura

..

To the editor: Goldberg is both right and incorrect regarding how to commit the U.S. military to armed conflict.

Yes, there should be a process in place that establishes who can commit the military, but it has to be clear as to when and under what circumstances. This is not 1941, a time when, after being attacked, we could wait one day before convening Congress to declare war. None of the Axis powers were a threat to immediately attack the 48 states.

Times have changed, and the existing process for committing our military is outdated and obsolete. Within less than a half day, nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles can wipe out a significant portion of our country, killing hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of our people. There is more justification for preemptive action today than there was before.

We don’t have the luxury of waiting for an attack from a country that has a clear intent of doing us great harm. When a country is enriching uranium to the levels that Iran was, that nuclear material is undoubtedly intended for weapons. The enrichment levels that Iran was achieving were way above those needed for medical use or to serve residential and business energy needs. It is very expensive to develop and use intercontinental ballistic missiles as conventional weapons. Clearly, they were intended to carry nuclear warheads.

We, as a country, need to recognize that we didn’t need to wait for the Iranians to complete their weapons development program before we attacked them, for they surely would have attacked us.

Emanuel R. Baker, Los Angeles