A close inspection of Iraq
SIR – You concede that opponents of the Iraq war have made a “powerful” case and acknowledge that “America's military presence has not prevented massive human suffering” (“Why they should stay”, September 15th). You say a premature exit would cause unacceptable violence and feebly suggest that “having invaded Iraq in its own interest—to remove mass-killing weapons that turned out not to exist—America owes something to Iraq's people”. You then report that 57% of the Iraqis to whom America is supposedly indebted consider attacks against coalition forces acceptable. You conclude that imploring America to continue the fight is “Not a must, just an ought” (a departure from your typically self-assured swagger).
You fail to explain why America's people or its troops should be forced to do penance for the lies of its government. One can only conclude that you continue supporting America's military operation in Iraq simply because you have fallen prey to the same refusal to admit error that has plagued George Bush's administration in Washington.
Edgemont, New York
SIR –“If America could choose again, it would not step into a civil war in Mesopotamia.” How about “instigate” rather than “step into”?
SIR – You made a very convincing case that the situation in Iraq will deteriorate even further if America withdraws. But in effect, America is locked into a classic double-bind: damned if it does and damned if it does not remain there. America is paralysed, a fact which Americans should take into account when they hear some of their leaders gleefully state that there has not been another attack since September 11th. Indeed, why should there be? The spectre of global terrorism has tied America up in knots in Iraq, rendering us totally unable to deal with any issue (eg, immigration) other than through some highly expensive, albeit cosmetic, gesture to protecting the homeland. Americans and Iraqis continue to die and our overall security situation continues to decline. We have become our own worst enemy.
Professor of conflict resolution
George Mason University
SIR – No matter when America leaves Iraq, things will get worse. But this is not a valid argument for staying. The longer it takes to leave, the greater the disaster when that leaving finally happens. Depending on an Iraqi army or the police or government to lessen the disaster is wishful thinking of the most pollyannaish kind. Better to leave now and save some American and British lives and, yes, some Iraqi lives, too.
The work-life balance
SIR – It is interesting to note the relatively low participation of Dutch women in full-time work (“Tied to the kitchen”, September 8th). Yet your inference that “maternal guilt” needs to be “cured” in the Netherlands is at odds with other observations that Dutch teenagers appear to be the best adjusted and happiest, have a lower rate of self-harm, and are the fittest and healthiest compared with their peers in other countries. The Dutch also have relatively far fewer people in jail. I wonder if there is any relationship? And who has the balance right?
SIR – An explanation of Dutch women being less likely to be full-time working mothers may be provided in the book you reviewed earlier on the millions of single women after the first world war (“Send them to the colonies”, September 1st). As the Netherlands remained neutral during the war, it did not suffer the same losses of men that other countries in Europe did. As a result, it was easier to keep mothers caught in the tradition of kitchen, kids and cakes, rather than to encourage them to work in order to plug gaps in the labour market.
Northern Rock responds
SIR – With the benefit of hindsight, you describe Northern Rock's business model as “dangerous” (“The Bank that failed”, September 22nd). Northern Rock's strategy was at all time transparent to the market and to the regulator. Our lending was and is prudent. We have half the industry average of arrears and no subprime loans. To manage liquidity risk, our funding is deliberately diversified, both geographically and between four funding streams—retail, wholesale, securitisation and covered bonds. Of the non-retail funding, less than 20% has a shorter term than the average three-year duration of a mortgage on our balance sheet.
We were repeatedly advised that liquidity in wholesale markets depended on lending quality: good loan books would continue to attract funding when bad loan books began to default. Instead, from August 9th, liquidity has dried up across all wholesale markets, making no distinction between loans of different quality, for much longer than even the most extreme forecast. In America and Germany, where many subprime loans have ended up on banks' balance sheets, the liquidity crisis has been managed smoothly, whereas in Britain, with low arrears, a bank with a high-quality loan book nonetheless found itself in a situation where its retail depositors temporarily felt threatened.
While we have welcomed the measures which the British authorities have put in place to reassure depositors, this should not hide the fact that in Britain it was general liquidity that was the problem, rather than specific lending practice.
Northern Rock PLC
Natural scheme of things
SIR – You seem to misunderstand the purpose of America's Endangered Species Act (“The overcrowded ark”, September 8th). Rather than just protecting “charismatic fauna”, the act is designed to safeguard the habitat of endangered plants and animals for many reasons, including the stability of ecosystems. That is why protecting the delta smelt, the “little fish” to which you refer, is so important. Its decline is a harbinger of the collapse of the biggest estuary on the west coast.
This estuary provides clean water for farms and cities in California. Anyone who cares about clean drinking-water or jobs for salmon fishermen should care about the smelt. The steps we take to protect it, namely ensuring that enough fresh water stays in the delta, are the same steps that will ensure clean water for people. That's why farmers and business leaders in the delta support efforts to protect the smelt.
The benefits that plants and animals give to humans aren't always obvious. The Endangered Species Act protects them all because otherwise we may not appreciate them until it's too late.
Natural Resources Defence Council