Letters to the editor

China’s Unocal bid

In “Politicians drill on China oilplan”(Commentary, Wednesday), James K. Glassman argues correctlythattheUnocal/CNOOC issue is just a case of one small company wanting to buy another one. If the hysterical opponents in Congress checked Unocal’s Web site, they would find that Unocal’s main business is finding gas fields and selling the output to the local utilities in Thailand, Bangladesh and Vietnam. In Indonesia, the company produces gas that is liquefied and shipped to Japan, and in Azerbaijan, it will deliver oil to a pipeline that ends up at a Mediterranean port. Similarly, Unocal’s North Sea production is used in the Netherlands.

None of these countries has complained of the deal — presumably because they realize the impossibility of China making off with their gas resources. In North America, Unocal’s oil and gas production feeds into a complex system of pipelines that makes it physically and financially impossible to divert to other uses.

As Mr. Glassman says: Politicians stay away.

WILLIAM T. SMITH

McLean

What’s going on?

Jennifer Harper, in her Thursday article “Fish rodeo comes with a catch” (Nation), severely mischaracterized Oceana’s participation in Alabama’s famed Deep Sea Fishing Rodeo.

In writing about our efforts to test fish caught at the rodeo for mercury content, she seemed to rely on someone whose agenda is to attack Oceana and its motives. The basis for our concern about mercury is clear: The Food and Drug Administration has warned women who are pregnant or planning to become pregnant to limit or avoid several types of fish because their mercury content is too high. The FDA is hardly known for promoting health scares.

Both the FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency have documented the problem of mercury contamination. That is why 45 of 50 states have issued mercury advisories for recreational anglers. Unfortunately, we do not yet have adequate information about mercury levels for many species caught by anglers. One would think The Washington Times would fully support Oceana’s effort to determine mercury levels in fish because we’re using strict scientific protocols and certified testing laboratories.

The article plays on typical stereotypes of “liberal” groups. In fact, Oceana has a proven history of nonpartisan work to achieve meaningful improvements in the ocean. We have a commercial fisherman on staff and have productive working relationships with several recreational fishing groups, including the enthusiastic invitation from the Alabama Deep Sea Fishing Rodeo organizers.

The Times deserves credit for consistent, unbiased reporting on Oceana’s past work. This article fails to meet that standard. It’s one thing for a newspaper to disagree with our positions on its editorial page. It’s quite another to attack scientific research that can only add to the body of knowledge on mercury’s prevalence in fish and effects on the public.

MICHAEL F. HIRSHFIELD

Chief scientist

Oceana

Washington

Insurance industry doesn’t need terrorism subsidy

Regarding Ernie Csiszar’s column “Terrorism insurance” (Op-Ed, Tuesday):

There is no present need to shield a fully recovered insurance industry from the uncertainty associated with terrorist attacks,especially when that uncertainty is on par with major natural disasters that the industryhascoveredfor decades.

The Bush administration and Republicans in Congress have the right idea when it comes to stopping the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) in the midst of its potential comeback.

TRIA has fulfilled its purpose to provide a federal backstop to the insurance industry while it bounced back from September 11, but it also has begun a transition to a world in which the risks of terrorism are serious and the costs are non-negligible. Now that the industry has recovered its losses, regained its surplus and developed the capacity to price and profit from terrorism risk insurance, the TRIA program must end in order for the industry to complete its transition.

A safety net stops being a safety net and becomes a federal payout when it is no longer needed. By continuing TRIA, not only will insurers continue to rely on the federal government, but taxpayers also will be responsible for bailing out insurance companies that have no incentives to develop adequate terrorism coverage.

Sagar K. Ravi

Washington

Army’s recruiting difficulties

Columnist Jack Kelly and retired Army Lt. Col. James Carafano, whom Mr. Kelly quotes, in his Commentary column (“Army recruiting turns up,” July 9) do readers of The Washington Times a disservice by putting a happy face on what appears to be a looming disaster.

Mr. Kelly believes the Army needs to be larger by two divisions “to most effectively prosecute the war on terror” and that even maintaining the current size of the Army will be difficult until the economy turns south. The draft, according to Mr. Kelly, is out. (As a former draftee, I am unconvinced that draftees are so inferior to the National Guard troops or reservists as to put their use beyond the pale.) More recruiters and a higher enlistment bonus (of up to $40,000) are the sum total of his solution. Enlarging the Army, however necessary, may be just a slightly bigger pipe dream than maintaining the Army at its current, inadequate, size.

The Army consists of the Regular Army, Reserves and National Guard — and more than a third to almost half of our soldiers deployed in Iraq are National Guardsmen or reservists. The problem of recruitment needs to encompass all three components. It appears the problem is both far greater and more immediate than Mr. Kelly suggests.

Though the Regular Army made its recruiting goal for June, it fell short in February, March, April and May by about 7,800, according to Mr. Kelly. Yet: “Deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan have stretched the U.S. Army so thin that its ability to retain and recruit soldiers is threatened, according to an Army-sponsored report … [T]he report says long-term options for improving the situation include relying more on the Army National Guard or expanding the number of Army combat brigades”(“Army stretched thin, report says,” Nation, Thursday).

Rely more on the National Guard? Mr. Kelly failed to mention that the Army National Guard “missed its recruiting goal for at least the ninth straight month in June and is nearly 19,000 soldiers below its authorized strength … and has missed its recruiting target for at least 17 of the past 18 months.” (“Army National Guard Misses Recruiting Goal,” The Washington Post, Tuesday).

Add to that the recent statement by the chief of the Army Reserve, Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly, that the Reserve was “rapidly degenerating into a ’broken’ force” (“General Says Army Reserve Is Becoming ’Broken’ Force,” The Washington Post, Jan. 6). One expects our military leaders to be courageous, straightforward, realistic and blunt. Maj. Gen. John Libby, Maine adjutant general, was just that when he said: “We’re building very quickly toward a crisis if in the next two or three rotations we still have 135,000 troops on the ground in Iraq” (“Part-Time Forces on Active Duty Decline Steeply,” New York Times, Monday).

It helps neither our troops in the field nor our overall chances of success in Iraq and Afghanistan to put happy faces over the real problem of insufficient troops. Sending too few troops to accomplish the job may engender greater heroism on the part of the troops, but the mission itself is put in jeopardy. Pretending we have enough troops is not what wins a war, most especially the war in Iraq. As a nation, we need to adjust either the size of the Army to its mission or the scope of the mission to the size of the Army.

ROBERT A. SCHADLER

President

Center for First Principles

Washington