Sunday, January 13, 2008

What Would Reagan Do?

Peace is not absence of conflict, it is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means

While Reagan believed that a strong military would be an invaluable ally in confronting the Soviet Union, towards the end of the Cold War he also came to realize that the U.S. and Russia must have a dialog if hostilities were to end. This lead to four summits to be held in Switzerland, Iceland, Russia and the U.S. From these summits between Reagan and Gorbachev came an end to the Cold War.

Now, for the past few years the sentiment of many Republicans has been "Iran can't be talked to. Why bother. We need a plan of attack". And I've been one of those voices, and still am. I do believe that trying to talk with Iran would most likely be futile. Radical Muslims aren't the same as Communists. These people punish women for being raped and believe it's their duty to God to kill anyone who disagrees with them. And the Mullahs aren't Mikhail Gorbachev. To not have a plan would be irresponsible. But we do need to at least try to talk.

Why the shift? Mike Huckabee. I like Mike. He's my candidate, but his quote from the recent GOP debate, The next thing you will see is the gates of Hell, had me thinking. Do we really want a three front war in the Middle East? We're having enough trouble with the two front war we're engaged in now.

So, again, What Would Reagan Do? Would he rely solely on military action or would he at least attempt an open dialog with Iran?