I was shocked reading Elie Wiesel's March 11 commentary, "Peace Isn't Possible in Evil's Face," in which this winner of the Nobel Peace Prize advocated war. It seems paradoxical that a man of peace would urge this country to go to war against a country that is no immediate threat to us, nor has any proven link to Al Qaeda. By contrast, another winner of the same prize, Jimmy Carter, opposes the war for the reason that Iraq is no immediate threat to this country.
Wiesel's comparison of Saddam Hussein to Hitler seems farfetched. Hussein is as evil as Hitler, but there the comparison ends. Hitler started World War II; Hussein invaded his neighbor, Kuwait, and waged war with Iran. To go to war on the basis of such "evidence" is not only irresponsible but reprehensible. Why not let the inspectors finish their job? If they report Hussein guilty as charged and the U.N. Security Council so finds, then use of force may be required.
Ake Sandler
Los Angeles
*
Your juxtaposition of Wiesel's analysis of Iraq and Robert Scheer's sneering anti-Bush diatribe ("When Bombs Fall, U.S. Will Join Ranks of War Criminals," Commentary, March 11) is a dramatic demonstration of rational, compassionate argument versus demagoguery. Wiesel carefully presents his reasons for removing Hussein with a clarity and civilized persuasiveness that even those who disagree can respect.