A reader writes:
Let me first give you a few brief words of my leftist credentials. I’m as stalwart a member of the left as anyone; I’m for the abolition of state-recognized marriage, much, much higher taxes, vastly expanded public education and housing and, ultimately, the collective democratic control of industry and commerce. I’m an atheist, think cars should have to get better than forty miles to the gallon to be sold, and I think most narcotics should be legal for recreational use. I am blue state, urban, stylish.
That having been said, I supported military intervention in Iraq though like you I’ve been critical of the handling throughout, and, like a lot of people on the left I know, I’m far more concerned about the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran than anything else that could possibly happen on the global stage. While one can have a meaningful discussion about where the line must be drawn between acceptance of other cultures and intervening to protect human rights, it’s only prudent to say that Iran cannot possibly be permitted to join the nuclear club. One can believe that Iran has a "right" (whatever that means) to develop nuclear technology while simultaenously holding the view that allowing Iran to have that technology would be monumentally stupid.
This is the most maddening aspect of the war in Iraq and the one I feared an incompetent management of the after-war would enlarge. Because our military are stuck and the world community knows as well as we that the American public would never support a military strike on Iran, the President is unable to apply the kind of diplomatic pressure to stop Iran without military action. And the electoral fear that is being collectively experienced on the right combined with the pathetic and transparent pandering of those on the left who should know better can only contribute to a dismal situation in which we’ll be forced to confront a nuclear armed Iran knowing we could have, but chose not to, prevent. Had we never invaded Iraq this wouldn’t be a problem. We’d be better able to display the kind of potential force necessary to stop development; failing that, our elected leaders would have the kind of public support for a military action necessary to keep the nuclear club closed. But even having invaded Iraq, had the President and Defense Secretary made the kind of committment early on necessary to win the war, the President would still command the kind of support that he needs to deal with the real threat instead of the one he invented.
I strongly disagree with a great deal in the first paragraph. But the rest seems pretty coherent to me.
(Photo: AFP/Getty.)
The Dish 