Skip to comments.Globe Columnist: 'Accept Iran's Dominant Influence In The Middle East'
Posted on 01/14/2007 8:17:28 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
It's not enough to embrace defeat in Iraq. The United States should pre-emptively surrender to Iran too. That's not Noam Chomsky's latest fevered pronouncement, nor the impassioned plea of Cindy Sheehan at the gates of Gitmo. It is the opening paragraph of a column in this morning's Boston Globe by Robert Rotberg. And who is Rotberg? Former President of Lafayette College, former professor at MIT, now Director of Harvards's Kennedy School Program on Intrastate Conflict and Conflict Resolution.
"The only way to promote sustainable peace, stability, and order in Iraq is to forge an unholy alliance with Iran -- and accept Iran's dominant influence in the Middle East. Only by accepting Iranian hegemonic pretensions, odious as they are, can the United States extricate itself somewhat honorably from Iraq."In case we missed the point, here's how Rotberg concludes his column:
"Without talking to Iran and coming to a cynical but necessary understanding, Iraqis and US forces will only thrash their way deeper into an interminable quagmire."Is there no appeasement that some on the American left will not embrace, no surrender to Islamism it will not rush to accept? Apparently not.
Neville-Chamberlain-lives ping to Today show list.
The pathetic liberal midset never ceases to amaze me. Neville-Chamberlain reincarnated....There is peace only if we apease.
Oh, great, another parchment moron.
Bebe/Binyamin ....... where are you?
The Left is morally and intellectually bankrupt.
Crack is bad, mmkay?
Isn't Rotberg German for "red city?"
Not unlike this famous quote from a great liberal military man: "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance".
Sounds like the professor's sharpened his head to nice, shiny point. History is one of the easiest things to learn from: you either proactively stand up to bullies, dictators and totalitarian regimes, or you will have to reactively stand up to bullies, dictators and totalitarian regimes. All that education, wasted on an idiot.
This liberal nutjob forgot to add the line "resistance is futile".
Apparently he's another posterboy for a "This is your brain on drugs" public service message.
I wonder if he throws like a girl?
The left beleieves the West should fall anyway, but they do not consider to whom they want to let it fall.
The left is out there surrendering again.
Hey,the Globe just had another layoff of personnel this week. I don't think these genius columnists are helping "Pravda northeast" much !!!
His last name ROTberg is very fitting.
I think his head is full of rot.
Well...dang, he makes is so easy.
I know I would sleep better at night, knowing that Iran has our blessing for a nuke weapon.
The answer is so obvious that the question is silly.
The left (Democrats) are doing two things that they always do, consistently, with any large geopolitical issues: They are setting up a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation where they pay no price at all if we successfully pacify Iraq -- even if Bush wins in Iraq, they have demogogued our population into the belief that it isn't worth it, even in victory...that victory has no meaning. They have convinced the average, tuned out, American that they have no stake in Iraq in particular and the middle east in general.
That's important to the Democrats for the second reason: They win when all politics are small and localized. The Democrats win when the arguments of the day are social or cultural - becuase most mature democracies, like the U.S. today, turn socialist in nature. So if large geopolitical concerns like terrorism and aggressive, expansionist Islamo-fascism take a back seat in the internal politics of the U.S., the Democrats will more elections more often. They want the discussion to be about health care, education, child care, the problems of working moms, prescription drugs, the environment, spanking children, and so forth and so on. When our politics are based in these issues, their socialist viewpoints win for them consistently...because most female voters, minority voters and even a chunk of the male voters are looking for security in a social sense, not in a geopolitical one. Small politics at the personal level.
That's the Democrat's winning forumla, and they are relentless in pursuing the hegemony of those issues which bring them victory.
All this surrenduring has to be keeping the libs busy! They've got to give up on half a dozen fronts these days. They're going to have to bring in some French consultants if this keeps up.
I agree that this stategy is reprehensible. But in general I am not one to denigrate too much the reputation of Neville Chamberlain. We all should read Winston Churchill's encomium to Chamberlain (available on the web) and recognize that Chamberlain's naivete and wish for peace did not make him unpatriotic.
Why stop with letting Iran call the shots in the Middle East? We could accept/establish an Islamic theocracy worldwide, first in the US -- as an example for the rest of the world. Sharia, lopping off limbs, heads, stoning women to death, whatever makes Islamofascists happy. Presumably Robert Rotberg and others of his ilk (Liberal fools), believe they'd be exempt. Not so.
You are historically correct.
However, while Chamberlain remained a patriot, isn't there reason to believe that a majority of the American left is not?
What an absolute a$$hole.
"Ah, the Jimmy Carter solution! "Sorry, the problem is here to stay and best we learn to live with it."
Well, according to Kerry, terrorism is just a nuisance we'll have to learn to live with so this guy falls right in line.
Well that makes perfect sense. Lousyette College.
He is either ignorant of the role Iran's government has played in Iraq and continues to play in Iraq - arming and training both Sunnis and Shia (so-called "managed chaos") to kill Americans and each other - or he's simply indifferent to the suffering they cause to Iraqis, Iranians, Lebanese, and Israelis. If he's indifferent, why does anyone so callous deserve the forum to say what he says? If he's unknowing and hence a philistine, why does someone so ignorant get to say what he says? The MSM is increasingly willing to give anyone a platform as long as he works for our enemies. The motives may be unknown, but the evidence of their ignorance is too self-evident to ignore.
Just throw everybody under the bus. Jews, Lebanese, Iraqis, Saudis and other gulf states. Then what? Don't you know they are coming after Britain and the US?
"Burg" is town, amigo.
But even Neville Chamberlain grew a brain....
I remember the good old days -- "Better Red Than Dead" was the leftards chant then.
Or we could turn every military and military-industrial facility into glass plains. Probably have to use nuclear bunker busters in some cases where the facility is buried.
England and France should have accepted Nazi Germany's dominant economic, military and political position in central Europe in 1939 according to this guy?
How about they accept our dominance?
Yep, "Better Dhmini. than Dead" is their new chant, but of course that might not be the choice, the only choice might be "Muslim or Dead". Maybe even just dead if you happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Thank God that no one takes Mr. Redhill seriously--yet. Like many academics he thinks he is living in Europe.
Chamberlain's sell out did have one useful effect. It bought time for the Brits to get the RAF a bit more built up, and more importantly to get the Chain Home radar stations into service. These provided the margin of Victory in the Battle of Britain.
But the Dems are not interested in buying time, and if fact any delay will only aid the enemy.
The only solace is that they will be the first to lose their heads.