To the editors:
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
Mr. Evans is quoted as saying that the Army’s shortages of supplies “are so severe that the Army may not be able to sustain an operation into Kuwait for more than two weeks.” Yet in the same paragraph, Mr. Miner writes that Mr. Evans has not written about the “sustainability” problem because “too much of his evidence is impressionistic.” What does that mean? If Mr. Evans has evidence, let him present it; if not, let him hold his peace. There are enough legitimate worries about the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia without voicing vague impressions of disaster. Journalists are supposed to be discreet, not coy.
There is nothing wrong with this opinion, by itself. It may well be true. But Mr. Evans still feels the need to take crack shots at those who do not join: “. . . what kind of a company commander do we think Dan Quayle would have made, anyway? And do we really want the sons of the buy-out artists and the junk-bond salesmen now trying to lead our forces in battle? I don’t want those guys anywhere around.”
Michael Miner replies:
