|
Mr. Krauthammer-
I notice you still have not issued a retraction for the insidious statement you made in your column "Travesty at the Hague." Really, Mr. Krauthammer, do you honestly believe that the German judge is still trying to carry out the "work" of eliminating the Jewish people? Please, issue a retraction of this statement.
My main concern however in writing today is your current column "Axis of Evil, Part Two." You're attempting to answer a reasonable question: what to do about Iran and nuclear weapons? But your answer is incorrect, because you make some critically flawed assumptions.
1. I think that most critics of the war in Iraq questioned not whether it would be a difficult campaign(it wasn't), but whether Iraq was the country that needed to be invaded. Telling them that Iran would be a far more difficult invasion makes no difference, if the threat is also significantly greater. The American people allowed the war in Iraq to begin because they honestly believed in the threat Iraq presented, as told to them by this administration. The same could have been done for Iran. If anything you inadvertently make a case for why the Bush administration would choose war with Iraq; it was the weaker country, and the easier victory, as your column states.
2. You talk of a multi-lateral effort towards Iran as if it were occurring two years ago, and not the current situation in which our army is bogged down in Iraq. A diplomatic campaign led by us but involving many other European nations against nuclear weapons on Iran would be a lot more effective if it could be credibly backed up by the threat of force, which it could have been before we invaded Iraq. The Iranians are not stupid Mr. Krauthammer. They know full well that while we are engaged in Iraq, we cannot back the threat of our words with the threat of action against them. the fact of the matter is we have only a multi-lateral diplomatic campaign to offer.
3. Your last statement is very nearly as absurd as the statement you made in your other column that I took offense at. Yes our troops are in Iraq, but they are carrying out the mission of providing as much security as they can, and battling a tenacious insurgency. Are we to simply let go of that mission and go flying across the border into Iran? Regardless of the question of how prepared are soldiers are for a second invasion(which is not at all, in my opinion)there is the question of who exactly we're going to leave behind to secure Iraq. More reservists? Draftees?
If I were to employ your cynical rhetorical technique, I might imply that yes in fact you do wish to abandon Iraq, and start all over again afresh in Iran, with a new mission, a new mandate, and enough bloodshed to wipe away all memories of what's gone wrong in Iraq. Perhaps you don't think so, but your column leads the reader to believe otherwise. Or perhaps this is what you mean. If so you should think of the men and women who would have to fight that war, and remember that is much easier for you to write of an invasion than it is for them to carry it out.
After the successful initial invasion, my friends and I who opposed the war in the first place wondered how long it would take the hawks in the administration to begin planning another campaign in the Middle East, against Syria, or Iran. Then the insurgency began, and we thought surely any such planning would wither on the vine...but also, that it would only be a matter of time before the hawks begin writing their columns and publishing their reports, planting the seed of another war in the minds of the American people. I see that in fact it has begun Mr. Krauthammer, with you. However, I am not all that worried this time. The Bush administration, for better or for worse, chose Iraq. And now they and the American people must live with that decision and it's consequences.
Thank you for your time.
Alexander Wolfe
Lewisville, TX
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
