Tom Clancy on U.S. Involvement in Persian Gulf

In response to “Something Worth Going to War For,” by Tom Clancy (Commentary, Nov. 7):

Clancy writes that economic security, which he identifies with oil in the Persian Gulf, is a vital interest. But, he continues, “principles are even more vital, for it is our principles that created our economy. . . .”

Upon close inspection it is found that he offers only one such principle. It is: “It has been a principle of American policy for a long time that to tolerate aggression invites more aggression.”

The “principle” will not stand. It is self-defeating when applied to the gulf situation: If tolerating aggression invites more aggression, then the U.S. should have not supported Iraq’s aggression in its war against Iran. According to the “principle,” the U.S. encouraged the invasion of Kuwait when it supplied military intelligence and naval protection to Iraq.

Minus the failed principle, Clancy’s argument is roughly the same as the one he attacks in the beginning: “ . . . We are there to preserve low oil prices.”

Clancy and others should cut out the nonsense. Of course a war would be for oil. If the Kuwaitis and Iraqis exported coconuts, would the U.S. have over 240,000 troops on the ground in Saudi Arabia?

KEITH F. SHIREY, Pasadena