Slapping Odom

I have at the moment one particular beatdown argument for William Odom, anti-Bush doomsayer du jour who asserts:

The first and most critical step is to recognize that fighting on now simply prolongs our losses and blocks the way to a new strategy. Getting out of Iraq is the pre-condition for creating new strategic options. Withdrawal will take away the conditions that allow our enemies in the region to enjoy our pain. It will awaken those European states reluctant to collaborate with us in Iraq and the region.

I wonder what evidence Odom has to support the idea that some unnamed European states might send troops into the region in order to stabilize it. With all his talk about the region...

Second, we must recognize that the United States alone cannot stabilize the Middle East.

..one wonders if he has ever considered the military of Israel. This is the fundamental elephant in the corner. Stability is, apparently in Odom's mind, a function of European collaboration. But the nation who has dogs in the fight, the one that is most willing to collaborate with America for the sake of stability in the region is Israel.

So answer this Odom and all your supporters. If the US, Israel and Great Britain called a cease-fire for immediate talks about the future of the region, do you think that Iran would come to the table and recognize Israel? Do you think Syria would agree to any treaty honoring the territorial integrity of Lebanon - that is if we're really talking about stability in the region.

You cannot talk about 'stability in the region' without talking about Lebanon, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan and the Gulf States. Europe and Russia backed out of their commitment to all of that three years ago.