Iraq is a mess. And it was a mistake to go in. But I do not blame the President for doing so because it did actually “seem like a good idea at the time”. But hindsight is always 20/20. The real question on the table is what do we do from here? I don’t know the answer to that question. But what some supposedly responsible politicians and media pundits are advocating as part of the solution is very troubling.
It seems that one of the most common refrains from those who are opposed to our current policy in Iraq is that we must begin to talk to Iran and Syria, since they are regional powers that could directly affect events taking place there. I heard it again this morning from the newly elected Democratic Senator from Virginia James Webb. All those who advocate this policy, point to the “bi-partisan” commission headed by ("Blank" the Jews, they didn’t vote for us anyway) Republican James Baker and former Democratic Congressman, Lee Hamilton as advocating it, too, as if those two oracles of wisdom were truly impartial and unbiased.
While under normal circumstances it makes sense to talk to your enemy when seeking peace… as in: “You make peace with your enemies, not your friends”… in this case it is nothing more than sheer folly to do so. Part of the supposed reason given to talk to this “axis of evil” is that it is in their own self interest to see a peaceful Iraq. So let’s talk and see where it leads.
But it isn’t as if their interests would only be pursued by them if we talk to them. If they truly have interests in ending the fighting in Iraq they would try to do something about now, instead of contributing to the problem as has been shown to be the case.
The real issue here is what “talking” to Syria and Iraq means. Exactly what will we be talking about with them? Iran and Syria were never exactly allies. They are two different ethnicities, Syria is Arab, and Iran is not. Syria is mostly Sunni, Iran is Shia and that too, has historically been a point of contention between them. If I am not mistaken, most of the Arab world hates the non-Arab Iran. But they do have one thing in common: their vitriolic hatred of Israel. And it is almost always the case that the rhetoric about talking to Syria and Iran is coupled with trying to solve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Translation of "solving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict": Forcing Israel to make concessions that would please Syria and Iran. Those who advocate “talks” or “diplomacy” are quite ready to force Israel to make what could very well be mortal concessions to the Palestinians most of whom would rejoice at the complete genocide of the Israeli people. Does anyone really believe anything else to be the case? No one seriously thinks that “talking” to Syria and Iran, two of the most viciously anti Israel states, means anything other than listening to their anti-Israel attitudes and conceding to some of their anti-Israel suggestions in the interests of “even-handedness”.
This has yet to be made clear by any commentator in the media who interviews one of the proponents of “talking” to Iran and Syria and solving the Palestinian problem. No public figure advocating this policy should be allowed to get away with it, without being challenged every time they say it. They should immediately be asked, “What exactly do you mean by “talking to Syria and Iraq” and “solving the Palestinian problem?” “Do you mean forcing Israel to possibly sign their own death warrant?” “Exactly how would that benefit the United States?”
Of course they will vociferously deny that they mean any harm to the Jewish State, but they will be hard pressed upon direct challenge to actually defend that denial. By pushing for “talks” and “solving Palestinian problem” they show that they are either woefully misinformed, or are completely uncaring about what happens to “the Jews” as long as they can “bring the troops home”. In some cases those who advocate this policy, privately wish in their heart of hearts that Israel would just go away: “Those pesky Jews... always in the center of all the world’s problems. If not for them, none of this would be happening!” They get away with this advocacy because it has become respectable, they can knowingly “serve up” the State of Israel to their enemies under the cover of the “bi-partisan” Baker-Hamilton commission recommendation.
Thank God we have a President who understand what “talking to Iran and Syria really mean. And thank God there are at least some Senators who understand this too. What is mind boggling though is the number of Jewish Senators who are advocating this “talk to the enemy and solving the Palestinian problem” policy?
Are they completely clueless?
