Carol Platt Liebau: The Road Ahead

Thursday, July 13, 2006

The Road Ahead

Michael Ledeen has some straight if unsettling talk about what needs to be done to defeat terrorism across the Middle East:

The only way we are going to win this war is to bring down those regimes in Tehran and Damascus, and they are not going to fall as a result of fighting between their terrorist proxies in Gaza and Lebanon on the one hand, and Israel on the other. Only the United States can accomplish it.

His words have the ring of an ugly but unavoidable truth. Of course, United States involvement doesn't necessarily entail large military deployments. But it does entail a vocal and sustained commitment to winning a war that, right now, the Iranian mullahs have decided we have no stomach for -- thanks to the Cindy Sheehans of the left.

For those over at Daily Kos who want to "imagine a world without Israel" (HT: Little Green Footballs), perhaps it would be instructive to think of Israel as the "canary in the coal mine."

And consider this: If they could, don't you think Hezbollah, Iran and the rest of the Islamofascists would be attacking the United States they way they're going after Israel?


Blogger Righty64 said...

We may not have the stomach for it, but it may be no choice for us. If we are really fighting the War Against Terror, then Michael Ledeen is right. We may have to provide some military support to Israel, but we also need to remind America every day the Islamofacists we are fighting and what kind of world it would be if they were in control of any country. We ignored Afghanistan until planes hit buildings in this nation killing nearly 3,000. We have to stop buring our head in the sand and stand up now before it is too late.

8:33 PM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8:59 PM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

A fresh pile of it plops on the ground and Carol immediately scoops it up and eyes her lineup of usual subjects, deciding to lay the disintegrating Middle East at the feet of Cindy Sheehan.

The blogger is unhinged.

9:00 PM  
Blogger Dittohead said...


Why do you choose articles writen by very sad and seedy creatures?

At Washington University, Ledeen was denied tenure, because of questions reqarding the "quality of his scholarship" and about whether Ledeen had "used the work of somebody else without proper credit.

Ledeen has often been accused of associations with shady organizations, being paid by the SISMI, an agency to decentralize the Italian intelligence community.

Ledeen was a major figure in the biggest foreign policy scandal of the Ronald Reagan administration, Iran-Contra scandal.

Vincent Cannistraro, former head of counterterrorism operations at the CIA and the intelligence director at the National Security Council under Ronald Reagan, stated Ledeen created the forgery of the β€œ yellow-cake documents.”

Ledeen criticized the views of former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, writing: β€œOne can only hope that we turn the region (Middle East) into a cauldron.”

9:03 PM  
Blogger Greg said...

Researching backgrounds again, Ditto? You've never responded to my suggestion that you enlighten us on the backgrounds of those organizations in which you seem to place a great deal of trust, like the ACLU for example.

We're still waiting...

5:35 AM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

6:26 AM  
Blogger wrabkin said...

More to the point, Ledeen was also one of the prime cheerleaders of the "invading Iraq will be a cakewalk" school of thought. And of the "Iraq has nukes." He has been wrong on every point about Iraq -- and now he's pushing for an invasion of Iran.

But I guess it's like those flag-draped coffins -- you know, if a Republican mentions them, it's good, if a Democrat mentions them, it's evil. In this case, being wrong makes you a genius, as long as you're a Republican.

7:15 AM  
Blogger Greg said...

Invading Iraq WAS a cakewalk.

Rebuilding an already delapidated country, on the other hand, is VERY difficult.

8:25 AM  
Blogger Dittohead said...


Real difficult when Bush didn't send enough troops to secure the country.

10:30 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Ditto, you're hard to figure out. Are you for our war on terror or not?
If you want our troups to come home now, then what does it matter to you if there weren't enough sent? And if you are for the war,
are you saying that we need to send more troups?
Help me here. Which is it?
You're all over the map!

11:29 AM  
Blogger Dittohead said...


War on terror is a joke. Al Qaeda is not a state and doesn't have an army. They are a lose network of extremeists that promote and ideology and methods.

Bin Laden and his top officiers should have been taken out with special forces. The more aggressively Bush acts the more people Al Qaeda can attract.

It was a mistake to go into Iraq, they were not a threat and had nothing to do with terrorism. However when Bush invaded he should have listened to his generals instead of sending half the troops they thought needed to secure the country.

Last week Collin Powell said Iraq is in a civil war, out of control and the various factions will end up fighting it out.

What are the troops to do? They can't tell Sunnis from Shittes from Kurds from various militant groups form ordinary citizens from foreign fighters from Al Qaeda.

2:36 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Ditto, how do you think we
toppled Saddam so easily?
Special forces might have
been there, but because they're secret, maybe we'll
never know. What's this about Iraq having nothing to do with terrorism, are you kidding me? Iraq was the center of terrorism in the Middle East. They had training camps all over and one with a hollowed out passenger jet used for training exercises. Saddam publicly offered $25,000 to anyone who would join the terrorist cause. You remember that don't you? You need to do A LOT
more reading and paying attention if you want to keep up with the rest of us! One more thing. Our main reason for going there
was to take out Saddam, if
the Iraq's want to settle their differences in the mean time, that will be up to their new government to work out, and we will help them for as long as we're there.

3:22 PM  
Blogger Dittohead said...


We toppled them so easily because they had disarmed and had 12 years of sanctions. They were not a threat. Bush and Pentagon expected the war to be over in threee weeks. That should give you a clue as to the fact that they were not a threat.

The $ 25K payment is something Rumsfeld stated pre-war. Considering much of what he said was not true. I tend to doubt this also. But even if it is true, when do we go to war to protect Israel?

3:57 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

The Pentagon was correct.
If you remember, "Misson Accomplished" which is what we did!

4:25 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

"When do we go to war to protect Israel"? Ditto, Do you think we should?

9:22 PM  
Blogger Dittohead said...


No. Israel can defend itself. They have the fifth largest military and get all kinds of money from the US.

10:15 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home