Letters to the Editor
Loyalist intelligence directors are a liability – Washington Post: Letter to the Editor
The July 29 front-page article “Coats to resign as spy chief” stated that intelligence directors have “not been such vocal political supporters of a president.” Well, President Ronald Reagan’s intelligence director was William J. Casey, who was a campaign manager for Reagan in 1980 and a zealous supporter of the president. As CIA director, Casey was responsible for the cherry-picking of intelligence on the Soviet Union that exaggerated the power and influence of Moscow and missed the decline and ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
The Casey example is an important reminder of the danger of appointing a loyalist such as Rep.?John Ratcliffe (R-Tex.) to be director of national intelligence.
America’s War Habit
The articles in your special issue “Needed: A New Foreign Policy” [July 16/23] exaggerate the potential for a public challenge to militarism and the readiness of the public even to do so.
Recent News and Latest Book
Meet Our New “Secretary Of State”…Nancy Pelosi
In any event, Pelosi’s travel to the world’s worst trouble spots creates significant confusion regarding official U.S. policies and politics. In flexing the flabby diplomatic muscles of the U.S. Congress, Pelosi is engaging the international community without any obvious coordination with the White House or the Department of State. The notion that anyone from the House of Representatives could have an impact on U.S. foreign policy or diplomacy is particularly ludicrous. Unfortunately, her trips seemingly amount to a last hurrah.
The Dangerous Civilian-Military Chasm In America
One of the greatest weaknesses of presidential leadership over the past 60 years has been the lack of presidential experience in the military and the inability to control the military. Several weeks before his seminal Farewell Address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower told his senior advisers in the White House, “God help this country when someone sits in this chair who doesn’t know the military as well as I do.” His successors have been deferential to the military and too many of them have used military force to bolster their credentials. This has been a major factor in the expanded power of the military establishment.