To the editor:

Saturday’s editorial complains that the French lack gratitude for their liberation, the Germans for the rebuilding of their country after World War II, and the Russians for our help during the Cold War. Questions of the truth of these complaints aside, the implication that the three should join us in attacking Iraq rests, as do many of the administration’s foreign policy efforts concerning Iraq, on just such extraneous matters.

The heart of the matter is the lack of moral justification for invading Iraq, a point clearly made by former President Carter on March 9 in The New York Times. In analyzing America’s planned action in light of principles of justice we claim to uphold, he made a strong case for continuing peaceful efforts to disarm Iraq, hardly the “do nothing” alternative that war proponents keep condemning.

Some who place little hope for peace on the moral arguments raised by President Carter raise other relevant arguments about the prudence of a war that may cost many American lives and will almost certainly worsen the situation in the region and here at home.

A friend doesn’t always agree with you. The advice to change course and avoid disaster may be the truest expression of friendship we could hope for. Bush administration efforts to obtain international support by threat and bribe, like the blame and ridicule of your editorial, show an inability to evaluate the planned war on its merits. If we can’t accept friendly criticism, we will just become more isolated.

Paul Fairchild,

Lawrence