pened: the white teacher was deemedrnthe problem. Word soon spread that thernforeign language department was racist.rnThe result? The foreign language departmentrnhas been overturned and itsrnmembers replaced by less competentrnteachers—most of us left.rnThe technique works well; play thernrace card, and you seldom lose. Withoutrnthis method, the politicization of ourrnschools might not have been so easy.rn—Marty GalernMercer Island, WArnOn Manifest DisasterrnAs the British captain said to the Italianrnmajor who had captured him during thernAbyssinian campaign, “No one likes war,rnbut you chaps don’t even make the effort.”rnAfter reading the June issue ofrnChronicles (“Manifest Disaster”), I getrnthe feeling that not only do you chapsrnnot like the U.S.A., you don’t even makernthe effort.rnThe conduct of the United States inrnWorld War II and in Vietnam was certainlyrnnot irreproachable, but at least onerncould argue military reasons for Dresdenrnand Hiroshima, which the Germansrncould not do for Auschwitz. And regardingrnour behavior vis-a-vis Serbs, Croats,rnand Muslims in former Yugoslavia, itrnseems either ill-considered or downrightrnperverse, or both. We seem to supportrnnon-Christians against Christians andrnMuslims against Christians and increasinglyrnagainst Jews, or at least Israelis.rnBut reading your June issue one mightrnget the impression that our government’srnpolicy is based on the desire to dornas much harm as possible without beingrntoo obvious about it. If this really is ourrnpolicy, then pointing out flaws and errorsrnwill only encourage the scoundrels; but ifrnit isn’t, these massive, detailed, badtemperedrnattacks are hardly likely torninfluence anyone to change.rn—Harold O./. BrownrnDeerfield, ILrnCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSrnNATO has three new members: Poland,rnHungary, and the Czech Republic.rnThe event has taken place at a timernwhen Europe is as stable and unthreatenedrnas it has ever been in history.rnThe Russians—regardless of politicalrnpersuasion—are profoundly disturbed atrnthe shift eastwards of the limit ofrnNATO’s Article 5 guarantee, which postulatesrnthat a perceived attack on anyrnmember state is an attack on all, includingrnAmerica. They see NATO enlargementrnas America’s equivalent of Russianrnmissiles in Cuba, except that it is harderrnto explain; in Khrushchev’s heyday therernwas a Cold War on, and today there isrnpresumably none. Enlargement tellsrnthem that Russia is still deemed dangerous,rnunstable, and untrustworthy inrnWashington.rnThe long-term effect of this decisionrnis contained in the warning utteredrnby Ceorge Kennan, veteran diplomatrnand Kremlinologist, some months ago;rn”NATO enlargement would be the mostrnfateful error of American policy in thernentire post Cold War era. It will inflamernnationalistic, anti-Western and militaristicrntendencies in Russian opinion, havernan adverse side effect on the developmentrnof Russian democracy and restorernthe atmosphere of Cold War to East-rnWest relations.”rnOur allies in Europe, too, remainrnunimpressed by Secretary of State Albright’srnexultant exclamation that “thernnew NATO can vanquish old hatreds,rnpromote integration, create a secure environmentrnfor prosperity and deter violencernin the region where two world warsrnand the Cold War began.” Some quietlyrnsuggest that, if membership in NATOrnis the key to all those blessings, then perhapsrnNATO should be extended to therncountries of Central America, EquatorialrnAfrica, and the Middle East as well. Accordingrnto the Times of London, “askrnBritain’s politicians or diplomats aboutrnNATO enlargement and they give a despairingrnshrug. It is like global warmingrnor drug cartels.”rnTo state it succinctly, NATO enlargementrnthreatens peace in Europe and underminesrnAmerican security. It offersrnthree small nations a near-meaninglessrnguarantee (for no American Presidentrnwill risk Boston for Bialystok) while encouragingrnthem to be less cautious inrntheir relations with Russia. WhilernMadeleine Albright pleads with Europe’srnskeptics to stop looking at enlargementrnas a “zero-sum game,” she hasrnforced a minus-sum game on them, andrnan impossible commitment on us. Sincernit is patently obvious that NATO enlargementrnis devoid of any strategic logic, militaryrnnecessity, or ideological merit, it isrntime to ask, “Cui bono?”rnAmerican defense contractors, to startrnwith. All new NATO members will havernto standardize their weaponry andrnequipment—currently of Soviet originrn—with their Western allies. They willrnbuy American, for they know in whoserngood books they need to remain. Prague,rnWarsaw, and Budapest will spend billionsrnover the next few years on advancedrnweapons they do not need, cannot afford,rnand are unable to use effectively forrnself-defense—to the delight of Crumman,rnBritish Aerospace, Lockheed Martin,rnMcDonnell Douglas, et al. If Russiarnis forced by all this to devote more of itsrnmeager liquidity to armaments, so muchrnthe better for the merchants of death,rnwho will finally have the “proof” that thernBig Bad Bear had remained bad all along.rnBut the main beneficiaries of the new.rnGreater NATO will be the enemies ofrnEuropean civilization and Christendom,rnwhether inside the Beltway or in the Islamicrnworld. To the Washingtonian foreignrnpolicy “elite”—neoconservativesrnand liberals alike—the enemy is still inrnthe East. The Serb today, the Russianrntomorrow—and the Creek had betterrntake notice, lest the Turk be unleashedrnfor another bout of ethnic cleansing, thernlikes of which we’ve seen in Smyrna inrn1922, in Constantinople in 1955, and inrnCyprus in 1974.rnIn their heart of hearts they fear therntrue unity of Europe—East and West—rnand its rediscovery of its common rootsrnand heritage. They are not content withrn6/CHRONICLESrnrnrn