To the Editor:

Yesterday’s News’ View (“With war begun, is it worth it?” 3/24) displayed a disappointing lack of analysis in its presentation of arguments for and against the war in Iraq. The editorial starts by setting up a false need for a shift in the debate on the war from “the ethics of intervention,” important prior to the onset of the war, to “the consequences of battle” now that the war has begun, as if practical concerns were of no consequence in the decision-making process surrounding the war from the outset. Then, laying out arguments for and against the war, the editorial only touches on the analytic foundations of these arguments. Such an approach is particularly disappointing especially if we are to take this editorial as the News’ endorsement of the war in Iraq. Regardless of our stance on the war, as students at one of the top universities in the nation we should expect the case for or against it to be made clearly and convincingly. While claiming to be the outgrowth of “heated deliberations” the editorial appears to be more the result of a superficial attempt to present one side of a debate that was chosen because of a “split vote.” It is disheartening that the News has given us an editorial rife with assertions rather than real analysis on an issue that may well be one of the most important of our times.

Jonah Schulhofer-Wohl ’04

March 25, 2003