An Insiders’ Operation
Your June 23 cover story, “Al Qaeda in America: The Enemy Within,” was informative, interesting–and disturbing. While we have been successful in finding and arresting some members of Al Qaeda, we do not know how many other terrorists may still be in America and when or where they might strike again. Unfortunately, our security agencies do not have full control over new arrivals, and many often disappear from sight. You suggest the possibility that Qaeda members may have lost their “jihad spirit” and simply assimilated into the daily life of American society. But that Hollywood-style ending seems unlikely because of the growing number of Muslim clerics in this country who incite attacks on so-called infidels. David Shichor Fullerton, California
Your June 23 cover stands out as one of the most sensationalistic and irresponsible uses of imagery by a major news magazine in recent memory. A menacing, vaguely Semitic or South Asian face glares from behind the U.S. flag as fingers tear apart the fabric of the Stars and Stripes. While the cover preys upon America’s post-9/11 ethnic anxieties, the image misrepresents basic facts about how the war on terror is being fought and won. Your article points out how the efforts of U.S. authorities in tracking down operatives of Al Qaeda have been assisted by Islamic governments as well as by members of the U.S. Muslim community. When immigrants and visitors from certain countries are being scrutinized to a greater degree than at any time since the Japanese internment during WWII, the use of manipulative imagery to generate media buzz is irresponsible and damaging to core American values. Jesse S. Levinson Lancaster, Pennsylvania
Thank you for your article on Al Qaeda. Over a seven-page spread you relate what many of us already know: that Citizenship and Immigration Services deportations targeting certain religious, ethnic or national groups will not stop Al Qaeda from doing its work. While some Americans may think that such discriminatory policies are justified, the rest of us know that these policies serve only to create fear, mistrust and a false sense of security. Patt Kameya Chicago, Illinois
After reading your chilling article on Al Qaeda, I’m convinced that the unsung hero of the U.S. war on terror is Attorney General John Ashcroft. Despite an attempt by the left to demonize him, Ashcroft has done what is necessary to prevent another 9/11, whether it be locking up suspects or investigating mosques and Muslim charities. Some may call this an infringement of civil rights, but I will gladly forgo some of these rights if it will keep the bad guys out of our country or in jail. Sarah Rachelles New Brunswick, New Jersey
I threw your sensationalist June 23 issue into the trash. A terrorist peeping out from behind a slit in the American flag? The average American citizen is still more likely to be struck dead by lightning than to suffer from a terrorist attack. Although if George W. Bush keeps invading other countries, murdering their civilians and stealing their natural resources, this may change. Come on, guys, quit stirring everybody up. The term “responsible journalism” comes to mind. Patricia Wheat Northport, Alabama
Your article on Al Qaeda in America was based on hearsay evidence from a prisoner under duress–which may or may not be valid–and continues the vilification of Arabs and Muslims. Turn the clock back 60 years, and this would be similar to our treatment of our Japanese-American citizens. Our greatest threat comes not from Al Qaeda or America’s Muslims, but possibly from our Justice Department, which is protecting us right out of our freedoms. Bruce Gordon Georgetown, Kentucky
Your article says that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed “held the key to unlock the biggest mystery of the war on terror: is Al Qaeda operating inside America?” Who do you think flew those planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? They were Qaeda operatives who slipped into our nation unnoticed and were trained to fly by our citizens. No one doubts they were answering to Al Qaeda. The only help Mohammed can give now is to confirm how many more operatives exist in our country and where they are located. Richard Lein Brownstown, Michigan
I was dismayed to read that the U.S. government can’t expel terror suspects who are naturalized citizens. We Christians believe that even in heaven, rebellious inhabitants were evicted when they perpetrated treason. Isn’t there justification for revoking the citizenship of those reasonably suspected of engaging in acts of terrorism against the country that has fed and housed them? Malcolm O’Brien Siparia, Trinidad and Tobago
So Paul Wolfowitz is coauthor of the 1982 Reagan Doctrine that sponsored and funded Osama bin Laden’s proxy armies? Its top crusader, CIA chief William Casey, said the doctrine’s war cry was to create “half a dozen Afghanistans” and to “liberate the passions of millions of devout Muslims” in order to unleash Washington’s own holy war against Moscow. Wolfowitz and the Republican guard were highly successful. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. Ignacio Chavez Mexico City, Mexico
I was disappointed by the photo you chose for your cover. The image of a dark-skinned male peering through a hole ripped in the American flag implies that dark-skinned males in general are potential terrorists or are threats to America’s security. The photo is a stab in the back to the local and national efforts being made to counter discrimination and negative stereotypes against dark-skinned people. Aileen Humphreys Lancaster, Pennsylvania
In your article describing Al Qaeda’s activities in America, you mention no fewer than 35 Qaeda operatives, including the 9/11 hijackers who, tragically, had operated freely in the United States for years. This is followed with a description of two terrorists who formally resided in Canada, and concludes with “Canada seems to be a haven for these folk” and “American authorities fret that the Canadians allow sleepers to walk the streets until they are compelled to take legal action.” Perhaps I am not following NEWSWEEK’s logic, but it sounds to me like the Canadians are behind by 33. Andrew Hill Cambridge, Massachussetts
Hawking America’s War
“(Over)Selling the World on War” (June 9) is an understatement. By not finding weapons of mass destruction capability in Iraq–supposedly an “imminent danger” to the United States–the Bush administration waged the war under false pretenses. And with a severely flawed postwar plan, it completely underestimated (and oversold) the length of time it would take to secure and rebuild Iraq. Back home, the national deficit is soaring to historic levels with tax cuts for the wealthy and unabated spending. Even if Congress does not hold this administration accountable, the American people should. But where’s the outrage? There is none. Bush has a 70 percent approval rating even after feeding us misinformation and running up the deficit. Dick Meis Murrieta, California
The claim that the Bush administration overstated the threat posed by Iraq provides liberals with a fail-safe opportunity to resume their onslaught of criticism against President Bush with little risk of embarrassment in the end. First, it allows them to keep hammering at an uncertainty with the hopes of damaging the president’s credibility on other fronts. And second, it will be an easy argument to abandon if they are proved wrong, since they can argue that their motives were more inquisitive than condemnatory (which they did when they miscalculated a gloom-and-doom scenario for the United States prior to the war). If they happen to be wrong again, it should not stop them from finding more to complain about and issuing other faulty prophetic announcements. Miguel A. Guanipa Whitinsville, Massachussetts
While we may not know for some time the extent of Iraq’s WMD program and capabilities, your article makes one thing clear: from its narrow interpretation of intelligence to its shameless spinning of facts, the administration underestimated the intelligence and integrity of the American people. I hope this is not a preview of the upcoming re-election-campaign strategy. Andrew Anagnos Santa Monica, California
A few years ago we had a president who lied to us about his sexual adventures. It was an amusing incident, but not very serious. Still, he was impeached for his lies. Today we have a president who appears to have lied to us about the reason more than 200 American and British troops and thousands of Iraqis had to die. This is not amusing and is deadly serious. I am waiting for Congress to do its duty. Joel D. Welty Blanchard, Michigan
Picturing a Suicide Bombing
I did not even have a chance to begin reading your article “Welcome to the Real World” (June 23) when I was struck by the graphic picture of the latest suicide bombing on a bus in Israel. As I studied the horrific image, my only thought was, “I wonder if the body so vividly shown in the photo is my friend Genya, who was killed on that bus. And if so, I wonder whether her five orphaned children will see this last picture of their mother.” I do not know about NEWSWEEK, but in my dictionary, the word “sensitivity” can be found on the same page as the word “sensationalism.” Paula B. Arbit Jerusalem, Israel
A Democracy in Iraq?
Fareed Zakaria’s analysis that America alone is capable of establishing liberal democracy in Iraq preceded by rule of law, respect for human rights and religious tolerance has the trappings of a bardlike oration (“How to Win the Peace,” April 21). While the liquidation of Saddam’s repressive regime has been welcomed by the Shiites, Kurds and Turkomans in Iraq, no one believes that the war was waged for liberating these ethnic groups and not for the spoils of Iraqi oil. If purging terror groups and destruction of WMD were the real objectives of invading Iraq, the better candidate for such a mission would have been Pakistan, where the head of state is a military dictator who has usurped power by overthrowing a democratically elected prime minister. With such a person being America’s trusted antiterror-alliance partner, how can Zakaria contend that America alone can establish democracy in Iraq? Another question he skirts is the role of Islam in promoting development and democracy in theocratic Arab countries. Isn’t Islamic democracy a contradiction in terms? Sharad C. Misra Mumbai, India
Reading your April 21 cover story on Iraq makes me ask again and again: what answer did those clamoring for peace have in mind for Iraq? The more we understand the depth of depravity and sheer evil of the Saddam regime, the more cynical it looks when peace supporters suggest it was up to the Iraqis to overthrow the regime. How many of those highly vocal peace protesters around the world ever had to watch a relative or friend dropped into a plastics shredder by Saddam’s younger son, for example? Tim Symonds Burwash, England
I have very mixed opinions about Fareed Zakaria’s “How to Win the Peace.” His point of view seems to mirror the Bush administration’s, and it is quite obvious because he backs the war and the reasons American troops fought in Iraq. Now he is very optimistic about the peace process, but I think it will be more arduous than he supposes. I do agree that the United States should not do the job alone, because no one knows how the Arab world might react, and the human toll could be huge. On the other hand, I also feel like letting the United States deal with the mess it created. But my charitable soul can’t stand the fact that it may botch the opportunity. The United States needs help from every willing country. Jean-Francois Le Marec Angers, France
