Three Cheers for Silvestre Reyes

You may recall my previous post on Silvestre Reyes, the Texas Democrat picked to lead the House Intel Committee. Reyes is now setting a new standard for “realism” worthy of the name. Reyes, whom news reports then described as an “Iraq war opponent,” has called for putting more troops into Iraq. In the process, he’s given the sort of that I’ve been waiting in vain to hear from President Bush, and he begged the questions that the escapists can’t answer:

When asked how many additional troops he envisioned sending to Iraq, Reyes replied: “I would say 20,000 to 30,000–for the specific purpose of making sure those militias are dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military”¦

When a reporter suggested that was not a position that was likely to be popular with many House Democrats, Reyes replied: “Well again, I differ in that I don’t want Iraq to become the next Afghanistan. We could not allow Iraq to become a safe haven for Al Qaeda, for Hamas, for Hizbullah, or anybody else. We cannot allow Iran or Syria to have a free hand in there to further destabilize the Middle East.

He might also have said that Afghanistan would become the next Iraq.

[W]hen asked what he told Pelosi about his thinking on Iraq, Reyes replied: “What I said was, we can’t afford to leave there. And anybody who says, we are going pull out our troops immediately, is being dishonest “¦ We’re all interested in getting out of Iraq. That’s a common goal. How we do it, I think, is the tough part. There are those that say, they don’t care what Iraq looks like once we leave there. Let’s just leave there. And I argue against that. I don’t think that’s responsible. And I think it plays right into the hands of Syria and Iran.

With power comes responsibility. We can only hope that a collective majority of our leaders in both parties is responsible enough to see what Silvestre Reyes can. I’m beyond caring what party a voice of responsible governance comes from. And while my quick skim of the Iraq Survey Group’s report looks like a repackaged version of the policy and aspirations we have now, Reyes sounds a lot more “realistic” about one issue — the malificence of Iran and Syria — than Jim Baker ever has. Then again, maybe the ISG will pleasantly surprise me when it elaborates on its proposed “disincentives.” Something tells me the mullahs haven’t stopped salivating yet.

It’s not the idea of talks I have a problem with. I’ve often said that even talks with North Korea, for example, have great cosmetic value. They have no doubt persuaded plenty of reasonable people that North Korea is completely disinterested in disarming. It’s also lost on me why we trust the Europeans to represent U.S. interests to Iran. What I have a problem with is the idea that you make yourself safer by talking with killers from a position of weakness. That isn’t negotiation; it a plea for mercy from the merciless. If talking with the mullahs is going to have any prospect of success, we have to come in there with something in our holster that really scares them (sanctions? please…). Even then, as we learned from talking with Germany in 1938, North Vietnam in 1973, and North Korea in 1994, an agreement under duress is only as durable as our interlocutor’s perception that we have the will to enforce.