Midway's future will be as a nature preserve, home to millions of sea birds that nest on the three islets. But the atoll northwest of Hawaii will long be known for the battle that prevented Japanese occupation of these islands and turned the tide of World War II in the Pacific.
It is difficult for young people to understand how desperate Hawaii's situation was early in 1942 after the Pearl Harbor attack. The battleships of the Pacific Fleet had been sunk or badly damaged. Fortunately the aircraft carriers were not in port on Dec. 7 and were able to engage the Japanese fleet in the most critical battle of the Pacific War. If the Japanese had been victorious in the Battle of Midway, nothing could have prevented them from invading and occupying Hawaii. The course of the war might have been very different.
More than 3,000 sailors and marines on both sides died in the Midway battle. Their sacrifice should not be forgotten. Secretary Dalton said, "In peace and war, Midway has led our nation in acts of honor, courage and a commitment to the ideals which make America the greatest nation on the earth." But he added that it's time "to trade guns for gooneys." That's the name by which Midway's Laysan and black-footed albatrosses were known to generations of servicemen stationed on the atoll.
Now the emphasis will be on protecting wildlife and historic sites. A private firm has signed on to operate facilities and provide a variety of services, including flights from Kauai. In return, it has been allowed to bring in small numbers of tourists.
Provided the eco-tourism is kept on an appropriate scale, it should be possible to operate visitor programs without disturbing the bird sanctuary. Midway has had a glorious history; now it is embarking on a new and entirely different career.
The ruling United Front alliance is scheduled to face a vote of confidence in Parliament next Friday. Without the support of the Congress Party the government seems doomed to fall. But it may still be possible to make a deal.
Now, under pressure from members of Congress and others, the institute has reversed itself, recommending annual mammograms for women in their 40s. There are tough choices to be made by the medical establishment weighing benefits and risks regarding other screening issues. Will these choices also be determined by political pressure rather than the best medical judgments?
Rupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor