invalid implication

Robert Novak weighs in against Arik Sharon, apparently just because he is Sharon and Israeli. In today's column (from today's Chicago Sun-Times), Novak complains " the Bush administration has tied itself firmly to Gen. Sharon and his policies. And worse, Novak approvingly cites Chuck Hagel (R-France) who makes this expert determination: "'The road to Arab-Israeli peace will not likely go through Baghdad, as some may claim.'' Apparently Novak can't abide the fact that the neocon (read: Jewish and pro-Israel conservatives) community, by and large, believes that is precisely how to slice the onion of peace in the Middle East. The premise, correct in my opinion, is that the Arab world respects nothing so much as force. It is no coincidence that the incidence of terror attacks on Israelis declines drastically when the centers of the disease are occupied by the IDF. It would also not be a coincidence if further terror attacks on U.S. interests would decline if we carpet-bombed Damascus, Syria after the next Hezbollah attack on any Western or Israeli interests.

Novak's logic is as follows:

• Regime change in Iraq mostly helps Israel
• U.S. support for regime change is simply to help Israel
• military force is insufficient to "assure a democratic transition in Iraq, bring peace to Israelis and Palestinians, nor assure stability in the Middle East".
• the Bush-Sharon "indissoluble bond" hurts U.S. interests in the Islamic world.

Well, guess we should let Israel dangle in the wind unless they give up 95% of the West Bank and Gaza, and agree to share Jerusalem...whoa...that's what was agreed to in 2000, wasn't it? The Palestinians rejected that peace deal and began their terror campaign. Getting back to Novak and his appeasing bud Hagel, here's a flash: the U.S. backs Sharon because it is the right thing to do. Our interests coincide with Israel's. Saddam's regime in Iraq must be eliminated, whether or not it is also in Israel's best interests. That it is (in Israel's best interests) merely affirms the nature of the ties that bind us together.

Finally, Novak is partially correct in raising concerns about our support in the Islamic world, especially in Turkey. It is better to have friends that will help you in a war than not. But Novak's way, which would appear to abandon a hardline against Saddam, is appeasement without calling it thus. We would like the support of Turkey and other Islamic states, but not at the expense of our true national interests.

The bottom line for those who favor freedom over tyranny, in the U.S., Iraq, Turkey, or any other nation, is to do the right thing; not the popular thing. The right thing is regime change and disarmament of Iraq. Period.