Thursday, April 5, 2007

But Who's Against the Next War?

David Rieff in last week's New York Times Magazine reviews the Iran policy of three Democratic presidential candidates.
Senator Clinton used virtually the same formulation as Vice President Cheney. When dealing with Iran, she insisted, "no option can be taken off the table."

Speaking to a meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), a lobbying group, on March 2, Senator Obama said pretty much the same: the Iranian regime was "a threat to all of us," and "we should take no option, including military action, off the table." John Edwards has been even more categorical. In a January speech in Israel, he said, "Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons." And he added, "We need to keep all options on the table."

Why, then, the push to withdraw American troops from Iraq?
...the three front-running Democratic candidates seem to base their logic for a drawdown in Iraq not on the desirability of bringing troops home but of being able to deploy them elsewhere.

In the right war, at the right place, at the right time, and with the right enemy.
...the issue that is dividing the Democrats is that their leaders believe a muscular foreign policy is what the age of terrorism demands, while antiwar voters believe such a policy may only breed more disasters.

No comments:

Post a Comment