To answer your question about how many battles do we need to fight and how many men will we need, I answer that we should fight as many battles and use as many men as we need to destroy terrorism at its source. Iran is a global sponsor of terrorism. So to me, it seems like a logical next step. Right now, Europe is waging the battle diplomatically. Let's hope Europe wins. If they don't, then U.S. military force will be required, whether covert or overt.
That is a very long article, so I'm going to have to read it at my leisure later. But I read a little of it. This stands out to me:
In a recent essay, Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert who is the deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (and a supporter of the Administration), articulated the view that force, or the threat of it, was a vital bargaining tool with Iran. Clawson wrote that if Europe wanted coöperation with the Bush Administration it “would do well to remind Iran that the military option remains on the table.” He added that the argument that the European negotiations hinged on Washington looked like “a preëmptive excuse for the likely breakdown of the E.U.-Iranian talks.” In a subsequent conversation with me, Clawson suggested that, if some kind of military action was inevitable, “it would be much more in Israel’s interest—and Washington’s—to take covert action. The style of this Administration is to use overwhelming force—‘shock and awe.’ But we get only one bite of the apple.” |
