Is it dishonest to deny that you seek military options when you are closing the door to every non military option? I guess that's a question every reader will have to settle for themselves, but it doesn't sit very well with me.
Michael Ledeen, writing at National Review, is concerned that we are not being tough enough on Syria or Iran. He states, "If we want a free Iran and a free Syria — and we must, if we really want to win the war against terror — we will have to fight for it. Not militarily, in these cases, but certainly politically." I'd be curious to know what Mr. Ledeen means by "free." Two democratic nations, or two nations friendly to the United States? But laying that aside, it's clear that Mr. Ledeen intends for us to believe that he favors the peaceful pursuit of our interests in Syria and Iran.
Except for he opposes efforts to enter talks with Iran or Syria. He states, "It is therefore disconcerting and discouraging to see the National Security Council's top man in Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, sneaking off to secret meetings with representatives of the Iranian regime, and to see Secretary of State Powell enthusiastically contemplating a trip to Damascus. There is nothing to be gained from talking to the mullahs. They are declared enemies of everything we hold precious. . . ." So he opposes President Bush's State Department, which is trying to work out a diplomatic solution to this problem. So assuming we don't talk to Syria or Iran, what other tools do we have at our disposal? Hmmmmmmmmm. Well, I guess we do have a military presence in the region.
No comments:
Post a Comment