READER PAUL HOLMES WRITES:

Allow me to offer what I hope is a more cogent defense of the peace protestors in New York than the one offered below.

I believe it is very difficult to stake out a pro-war or anti-war position as long as President Bush declines to define the precise goals of that war or the means we will choose to achieve them. For example, I would
wholeheartedly support an incursion into Afghanistan with the objective of engaging, capturing or ssassinating Osama bin Laden. I would probably support a campaign designed to liberate Afghanistan from the Taliban and install a democratic government. But I would be deeply disturbed by a war that involved wholescale bombing of Afghan cities and a worsening of the humanitarian crisis there.

As of today, all three of those scenarios are possible. One reason Bush's poll numbers are so high is probably because he has declined to define this war beyond the very general idea that we need to defeat global terrorism. I don't think it's unreasonable to oppose a war so vaguely defined. In fact, I think our Default position should be that we oppose all wars until we hear a satisfactory explanation of what they will accomplish and what actions will be committed in our name.

Paul Holmes
New York

(I was at the Mets game while the marchers were marching. It was, I think, a more productive use of my time.)

This is entirely reasonable. I would oppose indiscriminate bombing of Afghanistan (heck, I'll go out on a limb and oppose all indiscriminate bombing. I guess where I differ is that I don't really think that's on the table. Oh, we've rattled the nuclear saber a little, in the hopes of scaring the Taliban (which, judging by the refugees at the borders and the reports of panic and looting by Taliban forces in Kabul, is working to some degree.) But does anyone actually think this is going to happen? Nothing we've heard out of the White House suggests it is.

If I thought that the peace protesters in New York and elsewhere shared Mr. Holmes' moderate and sensible views, I would be defending them, too. But if they do, it's news to me. Instead it seems to be an opportunity for blaming America for whatever they can think of (my favorite inanity: the WTC attack was because of the bombing range at Vieques) and, Falwell-like, trying to inject their own unrelated agendas into the tragedy.