I disagree with your sophomoric breakdown of foreign policy and completely disagree with your premise that attacking through cyber means was a breach of ethics rather than a deliberate choice between the lesser of two evils. (See "Cyber Attack, But Wait—We're the Good Guys," December 2011, www.controlglobal.com/articles/2011/cyber-attack-we-are-good-guys.html). Also in your premise, you claim that, if the shoe was on the other foot, we'd cry foul. Yes, but not due to schizophrenia or hypocrisy, but because we're not a rogue state like Iran that foments the Jihad and spreads terror on a large scale. We are responsible members of the nuclear regulatory comittee that has been assuring us that Iran is peaceful despite all evidence to the contrary. I don't remember our president suggesting to wipe Israel off the face of the map, but the president of Iran sure did. Start with that simple comparison, and you'll see that you made a flawed argument directly because of your desire to split the issue down the middle. Remember, Solomon didn't literally divide the baby. It was a ruse to determine the intentions of the two complainants, and determine who was acting in good faith.
Editor in chief Walt Boyes replies: Mr. Diamond illustrates my point wonderfully.
More from our Readers
I've got to say that your "But Wait..." editorial was wonderful. I was bracing myself for another government- bashing tirade, but was delighted to see a well-thought-out, balanced editorial that correctly identified some of the complexity of our times.
Americans need to be asking these questions. Thanks.