Countdown

Down the Pipes...

Vol. VIII, No. 6
Posted on Monday February 19, 2007

Down the Pipes…

Countdown reported last week on the troubling, if not surprising, inclusion of the anti-Arab, anti-peace Daniel Pipes in a House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and Asia hearing on "Next Steps in the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process."  His testimony did not disappoint critics.  

Pipes, who would have fit in perfectly as an old-time colonial officer, began his testimony outlining the "benefits" Palestinians enjoyed under pre-Oslo "Israeli control."  ("They benefited from rule of law and a growing economy…They even founded universities.") 

He then went on to advocate his inhumane solution to the conflict and its further "benefits" to Palestinians: "Israel's success in crushing the Palestinians' will to fight would actually be the best thing that ever happened to them…Palestinians need to experience the certitude of defeat to become a normal people."  The Oslo Accords surely had its failures.  But one success is that land-for-peace allows us to know who is serious about peace and who is not.  Pipes remains solidly in the latter category.     

Setting the Correct "Pace"...

Whether one supports President George W. Bush's troop surge or not, there's one thing everyone should agree on—concern and support for the troops does not preclude a serious debate on Iraq, it necessitates it.  Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made that point clear during recent testimony to the House Armed Services Committee. 

"There's no doubt in my mind that the dialogue here in Washington strengthens our democracy. Period," he said.  According to the Washington Post, "He added that potential enemies may take some comfort from the rancor but said they 'don't have a clue how democracy works.'"  Some in Washington may also need a reminder. 

Let's Retire This Line As Well…

While we're setting the rules for the Iraq debate, let's retire a familiar line, one used most recently by House Minority
Leader John Boehner (R-OH): "(And) if we leave, they will follow us home.
It's that simple."  Is it really that simple?  Does that mean we should stay in
Iraq forever?  Voters made clear in November that they want a serious, substantive debate on the future of US foreign policy.  Fear-mongering and name-calling won't cut it.    

In a completely unsourced column titled, "Coalition in Collapse," Parade
magazine blames Europe's unwillingness to "antagonize their growing Muslim
populations" as the reason many countries are not part of "coalition
forces" in Iraq.  While the report never reveals which "key US
policy-makers" have made this claim, its assumptions are easily discredited. 

Several of these same European countries have themselves suffered terrorist attacks and their Muslim citizens are among the victims.  The insinuation that other countries cannot disagree with US policy in Iraq, (which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) recently termed the "worst foreign policy mistake in US history") without capitulating to terrorists is baseless, insulting, and, ultimately, damaging to the US because it allows to stick our heads in the sand and ignore the legitimate concerns expressed by European and Arab allies.