To the Editor:
Re “G.O.P. Embraces Choose for Protection at Testy Listening to” (entrance web page, Jan. 15):
The number of Pete Hegseth to be secretary of protection is deeply troubling in a couple of method. The eye dedicated to his questionable character and unseemly previous conduct mustn’t obscure an equally basic drawback: his beautiful lack of {qualifications} for thus necessary a place.
There may be fairly merely nothing in his résumé to counsel that he can be as much as the daunting challenges he would face on the Pentagon. If one have been to throw a dart at a listing of 100 senior Pentagon officers presently serving, it’s unlikely that the dart would land on the identify of anybody whose credentials on the time of their appointment have been as slight as Mr. Hegseth’s.
Our nationwide safety calls for a much more skilled and succesful chief.
Douglas M. Parker
Ojai, Calif.
The author served within the Workplace of the Military Decide Advocate Normal on the Pentagon from 1960 to 1962.
To the Editor:
I’m the daughter of an Military veteran, the spouse of an Air Pressure veteran, and the guardian of Marine and Navy veterans. I imagine that Pete Hegseth lacks the integrity essential to function secretary of protection.
When questioned about stories of public drunkenness, he may have answered “sure” or “no”; as an alternative he stated these stories have been a part of an nameless “smear marketing campaign.”
He refused to agree that sexual assault or exhibiting up for work drunk can be disqualifying. Whereas providing to abstain from alcohol, he refused to decide to resign if he have been to drink as secretary of protection.
His refusal to fulfill with a number of Democratic members of the Armed Providers Committee belies his said dedication to run the Protection Division freed from politics.
For years he argued that girls are unfit to serve in fight roles. But he expects us to imagine that his Eleventh-hour conversion will final past his wanted affirmation.
When pressed by Senator Elissa Slotkin whether or not he would push again towards the president if he obtained an unlawful order, he responded that he couldn’t conceive of receiving such an order from Donald Trump.
The secretary of protection is without doubt one of the most necessary positions in authorities. People deserved forthright solutions to the questions raised about his character. The women and men serving within the army deserve a secretary who’s an individual of integrity and who will be an instance to themselves and others.
This choice just isn’t in one of the best curiosity of the nation and needs to be rejected.
Mary Ann Lynch
Cape Elizabeth, Maine
To the Editor:
Pete Hegseth’s affirmation listening to demonstrated that, as Senator Richard Blumenthal noticed, he’s a clean communicator who could be an efficient Protection Division spokesman. This doesn’t qualify him for one of the vital demanding administration jobs within the American authorities.
This listening to has been nearer to political theater than a accountable train of the Structure’s recommendation and consent course of. When the framers drafted Article II, it’s unlikely they anticipated a course of through which senators would ask the nominee lengthy, main questions scripted by employees, obtain glib, shallow solutions, adopted by party-line votes in committee and on the ground of the Senate, with fully predictable outcomes. In a harmful world, the nation’s safety can’t profit from oversight so superficial.
Pete Hegseth will virtually actually be the following secretary of protection. Are the leaders of China’s authorities and army institution involved in regards to the appointment of this tradition warrior? I doubt it.
Steven S. Berizzi
Norwalk, Conn.
To the Editor:
With the Democratic senators going into histrionics about Pete Hegseth, I’m stunned not one simply checked out him and stated:
“Mr. Hegseth, aren’t you ashamed to be contemplating taking up this put up? You’ve fought for this nation. And also you clearly love this nation, sufficient to put down your life for it. However actually, are you able to look your different troopers within the eye, even simply these troopers you respect probably the most, and actually say you’ll be able to lead them as the top of greater than two million troops, over generals with lifelong expertise, dealing with command choices for the Military, Navy, Air Pressure and Marines? Are you able to actually say you’re prepared for this and don’t have even the slightest misgiving?”
Mahlon Meyer
Renton, Wash.
In Los Angeles, Heroism Amid the Tragedy
To the Editor:
Re “Los Angeles Is Burning. The place Are Our Leaders?,” by Amy Chozick (Opinion visitor essay, Jan. 14):
Los Angeles is within the grip of an unprecedented disaster, with main fires leaving devastation of their wake. The temptation to search for a single protagonist, a pacesetter to step in like a personality from one among our metropolis’s motion pictures, is comprehensible however a misplaced want of Ms. Chozick.
This isn’t a narrative of 1 hero or savior — it’s a story of collective loss, sorrow, effort, resilience and willpower.
The true heroes on this tragedy are the folks of Los Angeles. Neighbors are opening their properties to strangers, donating provides and providing help in methods each massive and small. Firefighters are battling relentlessly, volunteers are organizing fund-raisers and numerous Angelenos are stepping as much as assist their metropolis heal. This can be a lengthy recreation of restoration, and it requires all of us to play a component.
Blaming elected officers like Mayor Karen Bass or Gov. Gavin Newsom for the enormity of this disaster is neither truthful nor productive. Management in instances like these is advanced and messy, and whereas missteps could happen, there are not any simple options. Dismissing their efforts overlooks the broader, systemic challenges of combating fires, managing the properties, lives and communities misplaced, and addressing local weather change in a metropolis and state as huge and numerous as ours.
Los Angeles will rebuild — not due to a single chief, however due to the collective energy of its folks. That is our actual life story; it’s not a film script with a predictable story line or hero. We will likely be a metropolis rising collectively, with compassion and willpower, to create a future the place we endure and thrive regardless of the challenges we face.
M. Jill Overdorf
Torrance, Calif.
Alone in an Empty Church, Away From the Stress
To the Editor:
Re “The Beautiful Silence of Empty Church buildings,” by Mary Townsend (Opinion visitor essay, Jan. 5):
Due to Ms. Townsend and her delicate reflection on her quest to seek out serenity and silence within the church buildings she has visited.
Our aggravating world appears a endless welter of expectations and actions, of noise and spectacle. Searching for out quiet atmosphere away from the temporal swirl of distraction is an intentional act.
One’s private anxieties, longings and challenges will be suspended in a sacred house that calls for nothing throughout these treasured moments of meditative solitude. A delicate emptying of thoughts can certainly replenish the soul.
Joe Martin
Seattle
To the Editor:
Mary Townsend’s essay resonates with me as a result of I felt the identical method in an empty church many years in the past when I discovered myself alone and close to despair, praying for what appeared to be an unattainable resolution to a five-year-long plight.
Being alone away from watching eyes is treasured. We don’t want to elucidate, impress or carry out. Our ideas with the unknown are non-public and honest. These moments keep in our reminiscence palace for a lifetime.
James Chan
Philadelphia
