Monday, June 16, 2008
What "the" Democrats want in Iraq
The Washington Post is either extremely disingenuous here, or totally misapprehends what is going on:
If the United States were to make a formal commitment to defend Iraq from external aggression, congressional consideration and approval of the pact would be appropriate. For now, the biggest risk is that Tehran and its allies will pressure Mr. Maliki into backing away from a partnership with Washington. In that case, Iran would hasten to substitute itself as Iraq's defender and strategic ally, with momentous implications for the rest of the Middle East. Surely this is not what the Democrats want.
In matters of national security, the Democrats are not united in the most basic things. There are not "the" Democrats, but "those particular" Democrats. For example, there is sharp disagreement within the Democratic foreign policy establishment over whether Iran is a serious geopolitical threat to the United States or only a regional nuisance that can be contained, or not, at our whim. Those Democrats who take the latter side of the debate would much prefer that Iran dominate Iraq than to run even the slightest risk that the invasion of Iraq might be seen to have advanced our strategic interests. It is hard to believe that the editors of the Washington Post do not understand that.
4 Comments:
By 
, at
Mon Jun 16, 09:29:00 AM:
Maybe they don't want to understand that.
By , at
Mon Jun 16, 09:47:00 AM:
There are Democrats who want to nationalize our oil companies. There are Democrats who want to lower the age of sexual consent to 13. There are Democrats who think that our Army is made up of people too stupid to get real jobs. There are Democrats who will support our troops when they kill their officers. There are Democrats who think that terrorists should have more legal rights under our Constitution than our own soldiers. So yes, there are Democrats who would much prefer that Iran dominate Iraq than to run even the slightest risk that the invasion of Iraq might be seen to have advanced our strategic interests.
Note to all of those Democrats and otherwise who cheer for the the failure of our Republic, be very careful what you wish for.
Read a little history, written by someone who is not a communist or socialist. You might learn something.
By , at
Mon Jun 16, 10:40:00 AM:
Ooh Tyree! Double-plus ungood! You are threatening the fabulists with reality. That is gonna hurt.
They truly offer the Abyss. Suprisingly, there are still some sentient people in this country that reject that notion.
-David
By 
Georg Felis, at
Mon Jun 16, 11:31:00 AM:
Remove "either" and replace "or" with "and" in your first sentence and it makes perfect sense.
