Acting on pure self-interest condemns us to escalating violence
I found myself troubled by Allegheny College professor Joshua Searle-White's March 10 piece in the Sunday Forum section ("Take the Moral 'Low Ground' "), in which he attempts to articulate a philosophical grounding for U.S. foreign policy initiatives. He perceives that we are basing our current war on terror on the "moral high ground" and suggests that this is a mistake; we should rather base our actions on "the ground of pure and simple self-interest," what he refers to as the "moral 'low ground.' "
There is nothing moral, high or low, about acting according to one's "pure and simple self-interest." It is a profoundly amoral position. Furthermore, when he suggests that our "victimization" at the hands of the suicide-bombers has given us "the moral authority to seek justice and even seek revenge," I want to say: When does one ever have the "moral authority" to seek revenge? Revenge never has moral grounding.
But the more serious difficulty with his argument is the belief that U.S. policy is currently based on claiming the high-moral ground, which, he reasons, we have been granted merely by being victims. Rather, our current policies are already grounded on the very principle Searle-White is advocating we adopt -- "pure and simple self-interest." On this point, it seems to me that Searle-White is operating out of a certain naivete.
The Bush administration has been very clear about it from its early days in office: Whatever serves the U.S. self-interest in international affairs, concerning economic or military policy, will determine our actions. Many in the European community are aghast at President Bush's blatant unilateralism.
It would be preferable -- and moral -- for the United States to work much more closely with the international community to seek justice and settle disputes. The U.S. government's decision to wage an all-out war before it had exhausted all the possible political and diplomatic strategies available to it through the international community has sent the message that massive force is the best option.
Diplomacy is ineffectual and painstaking. It is not, in my view, a coincidence that not long after the United States began its military operations in Afghanistan that violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict escalated drastically. The United States has shown the way. How can it now advise restraint?
Searle-White's advice is a prescription for disaster and escalating conflict. His grounds could not be more profoundly amoral.
REV. ART McDONALD
Social Advocacy Director
Allegheny Unitarian Universalist Church
North Side
The Iraq quagmire
Regarding the March 18 article "Iraq Attack Decision Ignites U.S. Debate" by James Rosen of McClatchy Newspapers: He writes that "President Bush's apparent decision to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has sparked debate within the administration over virtually every aspect of such a plan, from its timing and size to the roles of other nations and forces inside Iraq." An issue conspicuously absent from this debate, in both the Bush administration and the news media, is whether the United States should even overthrow Iraq's government in the first place.
The administration thinks Iraq's chemical weapons program alone would justify military action, though Rosen states we would also whack Iraq "if intelligence agents determine that Saddam has nuclear weapons or if he is tied to a new terrorist attack on the United States." Never mind how the same "intelligence agents" who failed to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks can accurately "determine" anything Saddam does. (Remember the efforts to link Iraq to the attacks? The results have been laughable.)
All respectable Americans -- politicians and pundits, Republicans and Democrats -- agree the United States can bomb and invade any country (especially any oil-rich country) for any reason or for no reason at all, without a formal declaration of war, and without following international law. All respectable Americans know only the United States and its allies (Great Britain, Israel, etc.) can own and use nukes and other weapons of mass destruction.
By the way, I admire neither Saddam nor any type of repressive government. I write this because the government and the news media think anyone who dissents from Bush's war policy supports "the enemy" and hates "freedom."
DAVID V. MATTHEWS
Aliquippa
Save our arena
When the Civic (Mellon) Arena was first opened in 1961, the people of Pittsburgh were very proud of it. It was the first building with a retractable roof ever built (and still the largest in the world). A great old neighborhood was sacrificed for it. The roof was built entirely of Pittsburgh steel. Its revolutionary architectural design is unique -- there is no other building like it in the world.
If it is the oldest arena in the NHL, so what? It was not built with the Penguins in mind in the first place, and they are lucky to play in this architectural jewel.
People of Pittsburgh, I appeal to your sense of preservation. Let's send Lemeiux back to Canada and keep our Civic Arena.
ROCKY MALERBO
Dormont
Hypocrisy is a sure bet
I am continually amazed at the ridiculous laws that govern this commonwealth. First it is controversy over casino gambling, now they are going after NCAA pools ("Thriving Mon Valley Pool Shut Down," March 20). You would think the whole commonwealth was filled with Puritans.
The worst, however, is the duplicitous behavior of the government. Don't you dare lay a bet on a basketball game -- but, hey, feel free to spend your entire Social Security check on the Pennsylvania Lottery. To judge by the lottery lines at convenience stores, shopping centers and grocery stores, gambling is alive and well in Pennsylvania -- so long as it is conducted by the commonwealth (and it also set the odds).
The attitude that legalizing gambling will turn small-time gamblers into lifelong addicts might be true. I don't know. But if it is, we have a great crop of gamblers growing around the Pennsylvania Lottery.
I am 44 and do not expect anything to change during my lifetime. I will continue to go to the state store for my wine and try to remember to buy some for Sunday on Saturday for that unexpected guest. When I want to gamble, I will line up at the "commonwealth sanctioned gambling line" of the Pennsylvania Lottery.
MARI L. MURPHY
Carnegie
Irresponsible card ads
I have been watching (how can you avoid them?) the car ads on television (all channels), with cars speeding around curves and on straightaways. My husband says they are filmed at normal speed, then the ads are shown at a high rate of speed. They make it look like the car or truck can handle curves and mountains under normal control.
What kind of message does this give our young, inexperienced drivers? We tell them that speeding kills. Then they see these idiots driving at a high rate of speed so they can sell the cars. The kids don't care about false advertising; they just want to drive fast like the ads show.
I think all auto manufacturers (after all they have to approve the ad) are irresponsible and should really take a good look at themselves. They should advertise the car or truck the way they should be responsibly driven.
Remember the number of teen-agers who have been killed in the past few months because of driving their vehicles at a high rate of speed.
ROSALIND ROHBECK
Oakdale
The Palestinian goal is to eliminate Israel, not to make peace
I want to thank Dr. Cyril Wecht for his letter of March 11 ("Would You Share Your Homeland's Capital With Palestinians?"). The responses to that letter reflect the same bias that Dr. Wecht wrote of, and an inability to distinguish fact from fiction.
First, there is no "occupation of Palestine." Jews have lived in the land of Israel for over 3,300 years with Jerusalem, as founded by King David, as its capital. In 1948, when the land was partitioned and the modern state of Israel established, what happened to a "Palestinian homeland"? The Arabs chose war then, again in 1967, again in 1973, and it continues. Why? It's very clear.
Arabs have become Israeli citizens, receive government subsidies and serve in the Knesset (Israel parliament). For those Arabs under the Palestinian Authority (PA), what has the PA done to help them become successful and self-sufficient? They, too, receive U.S. aid. They also received weapons and training from the Israeli government to help them achieve independence and self-rule. Perhaps they are too preoccupied with trying to destroy Israel.
Why did Arafat reject proposals advanced at the 2000 Camp David summit? (Wasn't that virtually identical to the current Saudi proposal?) The land that is the "obstacle" to peace was acquired in a war initiated by the Arabs. The maps of the world would look dramatically different if all countries were to "give back" land won through war! Why is Israel asked to do this? It's very clear.
What hope is there for peace when Arab children are taught to hate Jews and Israel through PA-approved textbooks, TV programming that promotes and glorifies martyrdom, encourages children to drop their toys and take up arms, and trains children in the use of firearms? Tragically, the so-called "Palestinian plight" is politically motivated. PLO or PA, their aim is still the same: by terrorism or statehood to -- G-d forbid -- eliminate the state of Israel.
When Israelis are viciously killed and maimed for no other reason than being Jews, Israel has not just a right, but an obligation, to defend its citizens.
SHOSHANA MATUSAK
Oakmont
E-mail this story 
