Carl Levin: Take Action against Syria and Iran
Red State reports that Carl Levin, speaking at a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting, said that action should be taken against both Syria and Iran:
“I think we ought to take action on all fronts including Syria and any other source of weapons coming in, obviously Iran is the focus – but it shouldn’t be the sole focus.”
The exchange:
SEN CARL LEVIN (D-MI): “Now, in terms of the weapons coming in from Syria, those weapons that you’ve described as coming in from Syria and perhaps other Sunni neighbors are killing our troops. Do we have a plan to address the Syrian weapon source — of killings of our troops?â€?
JOHN MCCONNELL, Director of National Intelligence: “Sir, I know the military is working that border area to close it down from not only weapons but also jihadists coming in –â€?
LEVIN: “It’s more than just — we’re trying to close down the Iranian border area too. The problem is that these weapons are coming from a state which is — doesn’t recognize Israel either, just like Iran doesn’t. We’ve got to try to stop weapons coming into Iraq from any source that are killing our troops. I agree with the comments about trying to stop them coming in from Iran, I think we have to try stop them that are going to the Sunni insurgents as well as to the Shia. I was just wondering, does the military have a plan to, if necessary, to go into Syria to go to the source of any weapons coming from Syria? That are going to Sunni insurgents? That are killing our troops? … I think we ought to take action on all fronts including Syria and any other source of weapons coming in, obviously Iran is the focus – but it shouldn’t be the sole focus.â€? (Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 02/27/07)
Red State also has the video of the exchange up.
My view on this is quite similar to that of James Joyner: if a conservative hawk would have said what Levin said, I would have interpreted it as a call for military action. Considering the source, however, I’m not so sure. As James puts it:
My impression–and it may well be prejudiced by my view of Levin’s politics–from the intonation is that by “we ought to take action on all fronts� he means something other than “go in with guns blazing.� Perhaps he means that we need more and better planning than we had for Phase IV in Iraq. It’s not totally clear to me, though.
Kim Priestap believes that Levin is calling for military action, same goes for LawHawk. More at QandO and Sister Toldjah.
Meanwhile, Ed Morrissey has an interesting post up about a significant change in U.S. policy towards Iran: the U.S. will talk with Syria and Iran in the hope of improving the situation in Iraq. Ed – in my opinion correctly – notes that it seems as if Rice is gaining and Cheney is losing influence.
Somehow, that view [ed. that the U.S. should not negotiate with Iran] has changed, and it could mean something significant in the balance of power in the Bush administration. It seems like Condoleezza Rice may have prevailed over the Vice President, whose influence appears to be waning in the last two years of the Bush presidency. The abrupt replacement of Donald Rumsfeld and the questionable resolution of the Korean crisis indicates a softening of the approach taken by the administration, at least in tone.
Cheney and Rumsfeld were the two leading hawks in the Bush administration. Together they had tremendous influence on U.S. policies – I always compared them privately to the two grumpy old men in The Muppet Show. With Rumsfeld gone and Cheney now, personally losing influence… people like Rice take over. Rice has more faith in diplomacy than Cheney and Rumsfeld have (although less than Powell). We will most likely see more policy changes in the near future.
