I'm writing in
response to Kevin Wells' letter criticizing Mike Derrick's support for the Iran
nuclear agreement. Want to point out that the deal is designed to keep Iran
from obtaining nuclear weapons. Most of the people who are qualified to pass
judgment say it will do that. Therefore, it will reduce, not increase, the
danger to Fort Drum soldiers. Iranian funding of Hezbollah and Hamas is an
important issue, but it's a different issue.
Speaking of
terrorist groups, though: the U.S. and Iran do have common enemies in ISIS and
al-Qaeda. A little rapprochement here and there, as on nukes, might be helpful
toward cooperation in that area. Iran offered help to the Bush Administration
in Afghanistan in 2001. As one in a long list of errors, they turned it down.
Anything that leads to less chaos in Syria and Iraq would be welcome now.
It's hard to
believe that a lot of the American deaths in Iraq would have come from Iranian
backed Shia, if Mr. Wells was suggesting that. The insurgency was Sunni Muslim and
received funding from private Saudi donors and other Sunni countries in the
region. The Shia were in control and would have had no reason to attack our
troops. We were even training them.
Good on Derrick
for speaking out in support when he could have taken an easy out and opposed it
or ducked the question. It's always easy to take a pro-war, pro-aggression
stance. That's the one for those folks for whom the Cuban missile crisis is the
good old days. It gives me hope for his campaign that he had the courage to
take a pro-peace, pro-reconciliation position.
I was afraid Derrick might turn out to be a blue dog. Hadn't seen where he had taken that position, but I am grateful to Kevin Wells for pointing it out to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment