Regarding the May 2 article "Boot camp, camouflage, guns - and Farsi lessons?": I finished my training in Arabic at the Defense Language Institute more than a year and a half ago, yet I have never used my language skills. This is because I, like many of the Army's linguists, am assigned to a tactical combat unit. In my unit are Arabic, Korean, and Dari linguists. Only the Arabic linguists' skills will be called upon during our anticipated year-long deployment to Iraq this fall. Shortly after my unit returns, almost all of the linguists I know will have fulfilled their contractual obligation and plan to leave the Army.Skip to next paragraph
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
The argument put forth by the Army is that it's important for us to develop our "warrior skills" and to be integrated into the unit that we will support. While these skills may allow us to be used as if we were the infantry, and could help us protect ourselves if we should come into contact with the enemy, the downside is that our unique and valuable language skills are not being used - and are, in fact, wasting away. Because of this, we linguists will be less able to support the unit we are assigned to when we are deployed.
Perhaps the Defense Department should ask itself whether the cost of keeping linguists integrated into combat units and assigned to bases where no language work is done is worth the benefit. And perhaps taxpayers should ask whether they are getting their money's worth from sending soldiers to a year or more of language training.
Regarding the May 5 article "Beijing Presses Taiwan Overture": China's red- carpet treatment of the leaders of Taiwan's two opposition parties does improve the atmosphere of cross-strait relations in the aftermath of China's passage of the "antisecession law" in March. But since China has not changed any of the substance of its policy toward Taiwan, and it continues to refuse direct dealings with Taiwan's duly elected leader, Beijing's new diplomacy must be seen as an exercise in "united front" - allying with the lesser enemy in attacking the main enemy - or "divide and conquer."
It is regrettable that Taiwan's politicians failed to reach a broad consensus before engaging China. In so doing prematurely, they unwittingly helped relieve the pressure Beijing faced for its bellicosity, while deepening the chasm in Taiwanese society.
Vincent Wei-cheng Wang
Associate professor of political science
University of Richmond
Regarding the May 12 article "Limits of pulpit politics tested in N.C.": Do I believe that ministers should condemn their parishioners because of the way they vote? No. But I do believe it's a minister's responsibility to advise his congregation what they should look for in an elected official.
As a Christian who recently moved to a new area and is looking for a new church, I am seeking a minister who is not afraid to take a Christian stand, to be a leader of Christian views, and encourage others to live by them, though it may seem politically incorrect. Don't misunderstand - there is a difference between judging and believing a life choice is wrong. Christian love should be Christian love, regardless.
If society begins to limit speech from the pulpit, it will be the beginning of church and state merging in a manner that our Founding Fathers feared. It would be the equivalent of the church controlling the news. Neither should ever be allowed.
What does it say about our society if we do not fear limiting the speech of a man of God, but do fear limiting a man who has only ungodly things to speak? I'm not quite sure, but it concerns me, as it should concern you.
Sandra M. Kaus
The Monitor welcomes your letters and opinion articles. Because of the volume of mail we receive, we can neither acknowledge nor return unpublished submissions. All submissions are subject to editing. Letters must be signed and include your mailing address and telephone number.
Any letter accepted will appear in print and on www.csmonitor.com .
Mail letters to 'Readers Write,' and opinion articles to Opinion Page, One Norway St., Boston, MA 02115, or fax to 617-450-2317, or e-mail to Letters.