‘Daniels To Run as Conservative If He Loses Primary’

I was quite amazed at the reaction of Republican State Chairman Stephen Minarik’s reaction to Randy Daniels’s statement that he would run on the Conservative line if he lost the Republican primary for governor. If the Conservative Party were to bestow its endorsement on Mr. Daniels, is Mr. Minarik suggesting that the Conservative Party doesn’t deserve to have a candidate on its line willing to run an active race?

I bet the Liberal Party wished that Andrew Cuomo had made such a pledge to them four years ago. They might still be in business today if he had [“Daniels To Run as Conservative If He Loses Primary,” Michael Gormley, New York, November 18, 2005].

Mr. Minarik stated that Mr. Daniels’s pledge to honor the commitment that the Conservative Party would make if it endorsed him was “just wrong,” and that it raises serious questions about Mr. Daniels’s commitment to the Republican Party. This is sheer nonsense, especially when one thinks back that Mr. Minarik’s chosen candidate, Governor Weld, was willing to become an ambassador under President Clinton. Does this raise questions about Mr. Weld’s commitment to the Republican Party?

If Mr. Minarik chooses to support an out-of-state liberal for governor, as well as a Hillary Clinton-lite candidate for the Senate, that’s his right, but for once it might be nice to allow rank-and-file Republicans to chose their own candidates in a primary. He might see that Republicans would like to select candidates who run on principle, but it sure seems that principle means nothing to Mr. Minarik.

DANIEL PANARELLA
Staten Island

‘Bush in “Nosedive”‘

Rep. John Murtha reminds me of a few old friends, also mostly Vietnam veterans, who do not “hate Bush” but feel strongly that we made a mistake invading Iraq and now want a fast exit strategy. I try to make them see the other side by using a historical analogy that also might convince some of your readers [“Bush in ‘Nosedive’ as Murtha Urges Iraq Retreat,” Josh Gerstein, Page 1, November 18, 2005].

Pre-Pearl Harbor, the Japanese had devoured Manchuria, and had occupied large chunks of Asia, including Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, and large parts of China – including the infamous Rape of Nanking in the process. Japanese soldiers had no regard for the lives of civilians or any enemy soldiers that would let themselves be captured alive. This horrible war machine had one weakness: an almost total dependence on foreign oil, and the U.S. and Britain, via their colonial possessions, could easily embargo any oil shipments to Japan.

With the American public not even willing to go to war against Nazi Germany after it had defeated Poland and France, President Roosevelt faced an important decision with regard to defending against the Japanese. Without being able to declare war on anyone, his decision was to place an effective oil embargo on Japan – and some historians even assert that the only reason he did was to provoke Japan to attack the U.S., which would then allow him to declare war on both Japan and Nazi Germany. At any rate, it is almost certain that without the oil embargo, the Japanese would not have attacked Pearl Harbor.

But regardless of Roosevelt’s actual motives, suppose he had not declared an embargo, and the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbor, and the Nazis (who had already declared war on Russia) did not declare war on us. What would the world look like today?

Would the American public have had the stomach to declare war on Japan, after it had invaded Indonesia and the Philippines to get their oil – places much farther away than Hawaii?

Would we have signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler, when it looked like he was going to roll over the Russians? And even if the Russians still managed to repel the Nazi invaders, you might have ended up with a world dominated by Japanese militarism, and Nazi and communist fanaticism.

Today, we are in a similar situation, faced with a despicable evil that, since the September 11 terrorist attacks, seems only to be taking place far away, involving people we would like to save but feel are not worth the lives of American soldiers. Again, as in 1940, some feel so sure that if we do not rock the boat by fighting in Iraq, this will make us more safe rather than less.

I’m glad that Roosevelt put on the embargo, and I’m glad President Bush invaded Iraq and wants to stay the course. I also subscribe to the wisdom of the French philosopher, Etienne Gilson: “History is the only laboratory we have in which to test the consequences of thought.”

DAVID M. O’NEILL
Mr.O’Neill is an adjunct professor of economics at Baruch College of the City University of New York.

---

Please address letters intended for publication to the Editor of The New York Sun. Letters may be sent by e-mail to editor@nysun.com, facsimile to 212-608-7348, or post to 105 Chambers Street, New York City 10007. Please include a return address and daytime telephone number. Letters may be edited.