BCT Editorial – 5/14/07

This page was last updated on May 14, 2007.

Mutual interests; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 14, 2007.

This is yet another editorial trying to convince us “It is in interest of Syria and Iran to promote [a stable Iraq] because the instability created by the civil war in Iraq could spill over their borders.” “Finally” tried to sell us the same BS.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“For a long time, the Bush administration balked at talking with Syria and Iran in regard to resolving the civil war in Iraq, in large part because both countries are sponsors of terrorism.”

[RWC] Is it a “civil war” when neighboring countries (Iran and Syria) allow terrorists to cross their borders into Iraq and even supply them with weapons? In any case, does it really matter whether it’s a civil war or not? Regardless of what you call it, a win by our enemies will result in an Iraq just like the Taliban Afghanistan used to be, except Iraq has oil to fund the terrorists.

“Only when the situation in Iraq went from bad to worse did the White House seek to open talks with these countries. Even then, its reluctance to do so was obvious.”

[RWC] As I noted in my critique of “Finally,” this assertion is bogus.

“But the most recent report on human rights by Freedom House, a New York-based private democracy watchdog organization, shows the difficulty - if not hypocrisy - of letting ideology get in the way of reality.

“Syria was among the 17 countries the human rights group rated as ‘the worst of the worst’ for their maltreatment of their citizens last year. Iran was one of the 45 countries listed as ‘not free’ - and trending downward - as was Egypt, another key U.S. ally in the Middle East.)

“However, China and Saudi Arabia also made the worst-of-the-worst list.

“China’s abysmal human rights record, especially in regard to Tibet, hasn’t stopped the U.S. government from actively promoting economic and diplomatic ties between the two countries. Nor has it stopped Americans from buying all the Chinese imports they can lay their hands on.

“Saudi Arabia’s miserable human rights record - and its promotion and support of the radical Wahabi version of Islam - hasn’t diminished in any way the close economic and diplomatic ties between the two countries. Nor has it led Americans to take steps to diminish their nation’s reliance on oil imported from Saudi Arabia.”

[RWC] Make no mistake about it; I consider neither Red China nor Saudi Arabia to be allies, let alone friends.

Currently, though, there’s a huge difference between Red China/Saudi Arabia and Iran/Syria.

First, Red China and Saudi Arabia don’t tolerate terrorism or export it. As a reminder, Saudi Arabia has been attacked by al-Qaeda and is battling al-Qaeda on its own soil. There’s no question Wahhabism doesn’t help the situation and may even fuel it, but Saudi Arabia isn’t involved in state-sponsored terrorism. Both Iran and Syria are state sponsors of terrorism.

Second, to date it’s not a stated goal of Red China or Saudi Arabia to destroy the U.S. and allies.

“By refusing to deal with Syria and Iran, the Bush administration forgot the adage that nations don’t have friends, they have interests.

“And right now, it is in our nation’s interests to work with Syria and Iran in an attempt to stabilize Iraq so the U.S. forces can reduce their presence in that country and eventually come home. It is in interest of Syria and Iran to promote that end because the instability created by the civil war in Iraq could spill over their borders.”

[RWC] I lifted the following from my critique of “Finally.”

“That the Times believes either Iran or Syria have ‘an interest in a stable Iraq’ would be laughable were the situation not serious.

“Let’s look at Syria. Using the Times ‘logic,’ Syria also has an interest in a stable Lebanon, yet it supports the terrorist group Hamas that does its best to destabilize Lebanon. Remember the war with Israel last summer? Let’s also not forget even the UN believes Syria is behind the assassinations of Lebanese government officials who don’t dance to Syria’s tune. If a stable Iraq is important to Syria, why does it allow terrorists free transit across its border with Iraq?

“Regarding Iran, if it’s interested in a stable Iraq, why is a government arm (Quds Force) supplying weapons to terrorists working in Iraq? Why have members of the Iranian government been caught in Iraq helping the terrorists?

“If either Iran or Syria believed a stable Iraq was in their best interest, the above actions would not have taken place.”

“Sitting down with these countries does not represent an endorsement of their regimes. As Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Trudy Rubin has written, ‘Neither talks nor diplomacy means capitulation... Talks mean both sides put their interests on the table and discuss them directly. They may or may not reach agreement.’”

[RWC] I love it when one opinion writer refers to another opinion writer for validation. As I’ve noted before, “columnist” is newspaper lingo for a professional opinion writer. A columnist is like a letter-to-the-editor writer except the columnist gets paid. A columnist is not a news reporter, though there’s not really much difference given the current state of so-called news articles.

“Can they talk? Absolutely.

“Will they resolve anything? You don’t know until they sit down together.”

[RWC] I wonder if the editorial author remembers the outcome of the talks (1938 Munich Conference) between British PM Neville “Peace for our time” Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler.