Letters to the Editor | May 15, 2024

A letter writer stated of the Vietnam War that “President Lyndon Johnson was, virtually single-handedly, conducting a war to impose upon the Vietnamese people conditions they had not chosen and that the majority did not want; they were foisted upon them by outside powers including principally the U.S.”

The writer is not only unaware of the actual history of the partitioning of the country, and of the war itself, but clearly has not spoken with any native South Vietnamese either during the war there or here in the U.S. afterward when so many escaped communist rule. He insults not only the memory of President Johnson, a staunch defender of rights here and around the world, but every Vietnam veteran.

As an American soldier in 1968, I was ordered to LZ Bronco, the base camp of Task Force Barker, Lt. William Calley’s unit, to check on refrigeration. One morning after leaving the headquarters’ company mess hall, I heard a conversation between a South Vietnamese woman and an American soldier she was friendly with. Here, in the same sector in which Calley took part in the My Lai massacre only a few months afterward, a South Vietnamese woman was telling a GI how much she appreciated our being there to defend them from the Vietcong.

The country was divided because a majority of Vietnamese in the country’s south did not want to live under communist rule. From the building of the Ho Chi Minh Trail, done by the North to conceal its infiltration and invasion of the South militarily, not politically, to the final victory by the communists in 1975, Vietnam was little different from the invasion of South Korea by the North. Just because communist forces won the war does not make them right, any more than Germany was right to invade Poland and France just because it was able to so easily roll over both countries’ defenses.

John Baxter, Toano, Va.

In a recent op-ed, German Green Party member Lisa Badum declared that “the European energy crisis is over” and called on President Joe Biden to make his “pause” of U.S. liquefied natural gas exports permanent.

It’s important to recognize that Ms. Badum’s fringe views aren’t shared by even the most optimistic EU government and industry leaders. Consider that one of the European Commission’s top energy officials says Europe will have to rely on U.S. natural gas “for decades to come.” Or that the German gas industry association, whose members are responsible for keeping the lights on, says “the possibility of additional U.S. liquefied natural gas export capacities not materializing raises concerns about exacerbating the global supply imbalance.”

While Europe has admirably worked to reduce its dependence on Russian energy, the European Union still relied on Russia for nearly 15% of gas supplies in 2023, sending an estimated 8 billion euros into Vladimir Putin’s coffers.

The good news is that we don’t have to choose between global energy security, domestic stability, or environmental progress. Pennsylvania is second only to Texas in U.S. natural gas production, and it is positioned to satisfy domestic demand and keep prices low and stable.

Europe’s energy security is too important to gamble with. U.S. natural gas is not just the pragmatic choice, it’s a strategic imperative, and transatlantic energy cooperation is a win-win for all parties involved. To borrow from Ms. Badum’s own words, “we would all do well to get with the times.”

Marty Durbin, president, Global Energy Institute of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

So now Republicans in the House are standing up to antisemitism? Now they are appalled by racist comments? Now they want school districts to ensure minority students — in this case, Jewish students — are protected? Last week, in the U.S. House of Representatives, Republican legislators demanded that the leaders of three school systems — New York City Public Schools, the Berkeley Unified School District in California, and the Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland — explain how they were addressing antisemitism in their districts. The lawmakers had a field day taking the high road and pretending they cared about verbal attacks.

I am curious where they were (are) when their candidate for president — when he is not in court, that is — calls for halts in aid to Ukraine and Taiwan? Where they were (are) when he vilifies those he calls “animals,” rapists, and thugs who are “invading” our country? And where they were (are) when their incendiary rhetoric toward LGBTQ citizens is reaching terrifying levels? No, this was an opportunity for them to garner votes and spread division. If we needed further proof, ask why those particular school superintendents were grilled. The choice of cities the Republicans hate should make clear the rank hypocrisy of this exercise.

James Davis, Conshohocken

Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to indefinitely postpone Donald Trump’s trial for stealing and mishandling government secrets is an attack on justice. Not holding the former president to account for his dangerous behavior also attacks our national security. With boxes of top-secret documents stacked in his bathroom and elsewhere, there is no accounting for who may have seen sensitive military secrets. Indeed, we don’t know whether the former president tried to trade some of those secrets for his personal benefit, as befits his character and previous schemes.

Prosecutor Jack Smith ought to call for a replacement judge. The judge’s bias favoring Trump has been exposed by several of her decisions that were subsequently reversed by the higher appellate court. American voters need to know before the election whether this candidate engaged in traitorous disregard for our national security. Top secrets about nuclear weapons and foreign agents must be kept secret.

Bruce Joffe, Piedmont, Calif., bruce.joffe@gmail.com

The headline of a recent Associated Press article noted that the U.S. was poised to render a verdict over the legality of Israel’s actions in Gaza. I question whether the U.S. has the moral authority to question Israel’s action in a war it did not start.

Israel lost 1,200 people on Oct. 7, which would be proportional to 40,000 Americans. What would we do if we had such a large civilian loss? In 2001, we invaded Afghanistan because of the attack on the Twin Towers, where we sustained about 3,000 deaths. Estimates are that 70,000 Afghan civilians died in the war. Did the U.S. or the United Nations provide food aid? In 2003, the U.S. invaded Iraq based on unsubstantiated rumors that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Experts estimate up to 300,000 Iraqi civilians died. For critics who chastise Israel for “forced evacuations,” did the U.S. warn civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki of the impending danger? Did we suggest evacuation? We just dropped two atomic bombs and killed 112,000 civilians. About a million Japanese civilians died over the course of the war.

Given the civilian casualties the U.S. caused in Iraq and Afghanistan alone, is the U.S. poised to judge the legality of Israel’s defense? I think not.

Jennifer Dreyfus, Philadelphia

Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 150 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in the Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.