U.S. Response to Civil War in Liberia

In response to Jesse Jackson’s column “Lacking a Cold War, U.S. Draws a Blank” (Commentary, Aug. 2), again Jackson has proven to be a disappointment in his comments on the civil war in Liberia.

Jackson is upset at what he considers “a weak and inadequate response” on the part of the U.S. He points out what he claims to be “a 143-year-old ‘special relationship’ ” between the U.S. and Liberia. His “proof” that America’s interests are at stake is the one example of the Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. in Liberia.

Jackson feels the U.S. should have used armed intervention to stop the civil war. Yet, I’ve noticed that Jackson is very selective in his demands for U.S. action. His double standard, as applied to the Middle East for example, is quite evident.

Jackson is demanding U.N. Security Forces to stop the Liberian fighting. Yet, he never so demanded to protect innocent Israeli civilians from Syrian and Jordanian terrorist attacks over the last 40 years. He demands “a massive emergency relief effort” for Liberia, yet he supports those at home and abroad that would cut off U.S. aid to Israel, a tiny democracy and American ally, in a sea of Arab masses.

Speaking of “special relationships,” just who does Jackson think the U.S. has to depend on, but Israel, in the developing oil wars of the Middle East.

Jackson’s credibility could be greatly enhanced if he simply recognized that fairness must be applied to all persecuted peoples, not just the few that he has a personal or political interest in.

IRVING E. FRIEDMAN

Laguna Niguel