HELL AND HADITHA

A Marine's mom sounds off; the politics of anti-Semitism; and Leila Hadley Luce, according to her friends

LETTERS

William Langewiesche's "Rules of Engagement" [November] illustrates, perhaps unwittingly, a profound truth about the American way of war since World War II. The habit of empire building requires boots on the ground, and the Marines have done an excellent job adhering strictly to the "rules" of war, which attempt to provide a legal fig leaf to cover the obscenity of killing people in foreign countries.

If American soldiers cannot distinguish between combatants and noncombatants in a country which they have invaded, resulting in the massacre of civilians, then it is proof enough that they should not be there. I am old enough to remember another imperial adventure, called Vietnam. I assumed my country had finally learned a lesson about trying to control people who don't want you in their country. However, a noncombatant from that era named George W. Bush learned nothing from our folly in Southeast Asia, as he now zealously leads our nation into similar disaster, dishonor, and defeat in Iraq.

FRANK H. WALLIS

Monroe, Connecticut

AS THE MOTHER OF A MARINE, I cannot fathom why Vanity Fair would publish an article complete with pictures, names, and the hometowns of Marines who have fought for the U.S. with all their might and who now sit awaiting their fate (from an investigation that is not even complete) while potential jurors become tarnished by reading articles such as this one! These Marines have not been charged, yet you have hung them out to dry, ignoring the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." They serve for little pay and live the harsh realities of war to keep terrorism from our shores and to allow people freedom—the same freedom your magazine blatantly exploited. You should be ashamed of yourselves; these men deserve better than that.

LAURA FLY

Lathrop, Missouri

I AM SICKENED by the thought that the killing of civilians is "routine." I am appalled that the killing continues. Every American should read this account of the horrors of war and how enemies are made, not defeated. Shame on us for allowing this senseless war to begin and to continue.

JACQUELINE JONES

Portland, Oregon

WILLIAM LANGEWIESCHE'S "Rules of Engagement" is replete with inaccuracies and errors. The fact that the article effortlessly flows from facts to opinion to pure conjecture without any distinctions is equally disturbing. I'd like to address two of Langewiesche's most fundamental errors.

First, his declaration that the Marine Corps was forced to accept the findings of two independent investigations is simply false. There were actually four investigations initiated after the allegations were brought forward. Rather than being forced into action, as suggested in the article, the Marine commander acted quickly to initiate both a criminal and an administrative investigation once the matter was brought to his attention. Marine Corps leadership was immediately informed of his decision.

Secondly, Langewiesche tries and convicts the Marines of Kilo Company without access to facts and evidence that are still being developed in the ongoing criminal investigation. His article does a great disservice not only to the military men and women serving with honor and courage throughout the world but also to the constitutional principles of due process and the presumption of innocence, which are guaranteed in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

ROBERT E. MILSTEAD JR.

Brigadier general, United States Marine Corps

Washington, D.C.

WILLIAM LANGEWIESCHE REPLIES: I do not wish to debate General Milstead over semantics. The reality, as the article states, is that two significant military investigations into the Haditha killings were launched, and only after it was learned that questions about the killings would soon be raised in the press. Despite General Milstead's charge, the article is scrupulous in distinguishing among what is known, what is not known, what is speculation, and what may never be known about the events in Haditha on that November morning.

Furthermore, it tries and convicts no one and takes pains, repeatedly, to explain that such responsibilities lie in other hands. I have come to know, admire, and trust a great many American soldiers and Marines in Iraq. They have been thrust into circumstances, by woeful policies, that make episodes like Haditha inevitable. My article sought to place Haditha in this larger context. The private communications I have received from readers in the armed forces, which have been over- whelmingly positive, show that ordinary soldiers fully understand the situation I described, even if some of their superiors do not.

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

IT IS REFRESHING to find a journalist of Michael WolfPs stature who has not retreated to default positions on the subject of anti-Semitism ["Slurs and Arrows," November]. But I don't know whether to commend Wolff for broaching what is practically a taboo topic in public discourse, or to fault him for corroborating the notion that one can criticize Israel only by special permit.

Regardless of how one feels about Israel, it is a nation-state, and, as such, its behavior can be objectively compared with that of other nation-states. If such an exercise reveals Israel to be wanting, in what way is it anti-Semitic to point this out?

Wolff is careful to say that he is committed to the survival of Israel. So am I. But which Israel? The moderate, religiously tolerant democracy we'd all like it to be? Or the bellicose, theocratic republic it has become? The loss of Israel's moral authority, after years of erosion, is nearly complete. Yet our government, opting for tactics over ethics, hegemony over humanity, continues to provide unequivocal support. In certain parts of the world, this makes America a collaborator and a target. If we are to reverse Israel's spiral to the right, and survive this dark point in history with our own morality intact, we simply must get beyond the "anti-Semitic" canard and take a long, sober look at an untenable situation.

STEPH BECKLY

Los Angeles, California

A CASE FOR LEILA

AS A NONFICTION writer who has extensively interviewed Leila Hadley Luce—a woman whom I now consider a friend—for a book unrelated to the subject of "The Luce Family War" [November], I am appalled by Vicky Ward's scurrilous and unbalanced reporting.

Along with its mean-spiritedness, the article is thinly researched and remarkably irresponsible. Where are those who might have offered some skepticism of, and perspective on, the daughters' claims of child sexual abuse?

One reads this story with the impression that Ward simply accepts the daughters' devastating accusations and their onesided view of Leila's marriages—including her marriage to their adored father, who deserted his wife and family—no matter how silly or unsubstantiated.

Leila is a brilliant, refreshingly (if sometimes stunningly) frank, loving, generous, and supportive woman, even to someone she rarely sees. I am sickened by this piece of journalism that Vanity Fair has allowed.

LINDA H. DAVIS

Harvard, Massachusetts

PERHAPS THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS aspect of Vicky Ward's shoddy and inaccurate article is that she does not quote any of Leila Hadley Luce's many old friends, while giving endless print space to the revengeful fantasies of her daughters.

I have known Leila for 25 years and do not recognize in the portrait Ward has painted the brilliant, extraordinarily honest, loyal woman who is my dearest friend, staunchest ally, and richest inspiration.

Why did Ward not seek any balancing truth from the friends who know and love her deeply? I can only assume that Ward preferred the sleazy pleasures of slanderous character assassination to the more rigorous joys of impartial inquiry. Shame on her, and shame on you for publishing her.

ANDREW HARVEY

New York, New York

I WAS INTERVIEWED by Vicky Ward, but nothing I said was used in her article. I have known Leila Hadley Luce for 28 years. I have always thought her to be one of the great women of New York City. She is involved in so many wonderful causes and has been a big supporter of Tibetan Buddhist centers. She is an extraordinarily generous, wise, and compassionate friend. I consider myself lucky to have her in my life.

JEANNETTE WATSON SANGER

New York, New York

VICKY WARD REPLIES: The introduction of my piece states clearly that when I met Leila Hadley Luce, I found her to be fascinating, energetic, and charismatic. When I subsequently interviewed her three youngest children and many ofherfriends and read not just her legal depositions but the copious letters which she had written to her children over the decades (and which may not be reprinted without herpermission, since she owns the copyright), Ifound a far more complicated picture. It is doubtful that Ais. Davis, Mr. Harvey, or Ms. Sanger has seen these letters, describing a lurid sex life as well as an obsession with money and appearance, or read Mrs. Luce's testimony, which she tried in vain to have sealed. In writing the piece, however, I went out of my way to point out that people who suffer from mental illness do things they would not do if in full possession of theirfaculties.

FOR THE RECORD: The drawing on page 143 of Vanity FairV August 2006 issue was a parody of M. C. Escher's Ascending and Descending, © the M. C. Escher Company, Baarn, the Netherlands; all rights reserved; www. mcescher. com.

Letters to the editor should be sent electronically with the writer's name, address, and daytime phone number to letters@vf.com. Letters to the editor will also be accepted via fax at 212-286-4324. All requests for back issues should be sent to subscriptions@vf.com. All other queries should be sent to vfmail@vf.com. The magazine reserves the right to edit submissions, which may be published or otherwise used in any medium. All submissions become the property of Vanity Fair.

MORE FROM THE V. F. MAILBAG

If we were ever to receive a letter from. say. Mesa, Arizona, we always knew we'd want it to begin with the salutation "Howdy, Editor." (A mailbag can dream, can't it?) So... thank you, Tom Taylor!

Also in our November-issue mail comes our favorite last sentence, inspired by James Wolcott's "Red State Babylon," courtesy of a reader in Louisiana: 'And, yes, we are overweight, but our food is just too damn good."

Regarding Michael Wolff's "Slurs and Arrows": Gail King ("an American Jew married to a Wasp"), of Oakland, writes, "Thank you for a thought-provoking perspective on anti-Semitism. I found many shocking truths to ponder." Evelyn Osterweil. of Sarasota, found the piece itself "blatantly anti-Semitic."

Here are some of the people readers felt were unjustly left out of VF.'s Country & Western Music Portfolio: Toby Keith, Mary Chapin Carpenter, Garth Brooks, Lucinda Williams, the Dixie Chicks, George Strait, and, notably, Loretta Lynn, concerning whose omission Heather Cruikshank, of Louisville, observed. "I still love you guys and gals—just don't let it happen again." And Penelope Malone, of Atlanta, sent us a charming note about Lisa Robinson's Nashville feature, in Fanfair—so charming that we genuinely regret ruining her Vanderbilt reunion, which she was apparently attending "with no hope of getting anywhere near the Elliston Place Soda Shop, since you showcased it on page 144."

Finally, this from Jane Wilcoxson. of Hartselle, Alabama: "Graydon Carter... I love the man!!!" To which we can only add the obvious: "Now see the movie!"