Great Catch, Alice Marshall! Great Analysis, Jim Webb!

Anyway, the point of this post is twofold:  1) to acknowledge that Alice and I - all Virginia Democrats, really - are now on the same team; and 2) to point out a great catch by Alice.  Alice quotes from Jane's, the legendary British military-strategic-intelligence group.  According to Jane's, as reported by Alice, Syria is the key to resolving the conflict in Lebanon:

Amid the ongoing crisis, leading Israeli analysts are proposing a new approach: instead of being part of the problem, Syria must become part of the solution. According to this view, Damascus has been, and will remain, the key to Lebanon's political stability and to any future peace deal between Israel and Lebanon. The argument goes that as long as Syria is excluded from the process, it will continue to destabilise the region, either directly or by proxy.

Among the leading proponents of this theory is former Mossad Deputy Chief David Kimche, now a commentator on regional security.

And, as Alice notes, this is exactly what Jim Webb was suggesting a few days ago, when he told the Washington Times:

Sooner or later this has to be dealt with in a different way, and I think this administration has really failed in terms of reaching out diplomatically, particularly with Syria. There is a way to cut Syria away from Iran. It is not a natural alliance. The Sunnis are a secular society. Particularly with [Syrian President Bashar] Assad, in my view, they have been trying to open up relations. Syria is a connector to Hezbollah.

And what was George Allen saying?  Basically, rejecting any talks with Syria while reiterating the useless talking point, "Syria is one of the main sponsors of Hezbollah and they know exactly what they need to do if they want to be constructive -- end their support for this terrorist group."  Blah, blah, blah. 

In other words, we've got one candidate for U.S. Senate from Virginia this year who "gets it" on foreign policy and geostrategy.  That person is former Reagan Navy Secretary Jim Webb.  Then, we have another candidate who, well, doesn't "get it"  at all.  That person is the son of a former football coach, who has no military background himself but bizarrely pretends to be a "cowboy," but is too "bored" in the Senate to - gasp - bone up on areas where he is dreadfully weak, like foreign policy or Middle East politics.

In this post-9/11 time of world trouble and danger, who would YOU rather have in the U.S. Senate?  Jim "American Hero" Webb, a true heavyweight in understanding the threats America faces today - and how to deal with them?  Or George "California Cowboy" Allen, about the lightest that a lightweight can be, who has no clue about much of anything except how to raise wads of money and to hire the dirtiest and nastiest political consultants in the business?

This choice is not difficult.  Jim Webb was right about Iraq, he was right about Syria, and he'll be right about many other important issues when he's in the U.S. Senate.  And George Allen?  Sad to say, but he's just wrong, wrong, wrong - whether it's on foreign policy, the budget deficit, Hurricane Katrina, Terry Schiavo, a woman's right to choose, the environment, embryonic stem cell resarch, high gas prices, net neutrality, or just about any other issue.  Can anyone remember an election with such a disparity of talent, intellect, and integrity as in this one?  If so, I'd love to hear it, cuz I can't recall.  Go Webb!

Comments