Go to 44: The Obama Presidency
- Add a comment
- Go to Tougher on Iran
If the U.S. were on the moral high ground, an assumption you seem to share with the American establishment, then your argument would be sound. But we have to accept our own share of the responsibility for the situation instead of placing all the blame on Iran. If the Iranians are sending weapons into Iraq, they are wrong to do so; but then, we are wrong to be in Iraq in the first place. The solution would be to pull out of Iraq, so as to avoid unnecessary violence. (This is not appeasement: if we had a right to be there, it would be right to stay and fight, as well as punish Iran for its interference.)
Diplomatically, labeling the IRG a terrorist organization seems counterproductive. I don't think concerns about jeopardizing talks are "puny". Once we declare our adversary terrorist, we basically rule out any meaningful attempt at diplomacy.
Then there is the more legalistic question of whether attacks against soldiers count as terrorism. Doesn't terrorism require attacks principally on civilians? I know that for a family of a slain American soldier in Iraq, the distinction would seem meaningless: their brave soldier is gone, period. But for political and legal purposes, I think we have to distinguish between attacks on soldiers and attacks on civilians, or else we risk making everyone, and therefore no one, a terrorist. (If attacking soldiers makes you a terrorist, then only a pacifist nation would elude the label.)
posted by
Dyl_Pickle
on August 21, 2007 at 8:52 AM
| link to this | reply