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.