Of diplomacy and war

Tirelessly and repetitively, Paul Greenberg beats the drum for American militancy. It seems according to him that the president and secretary of state are weak, spineless avatars of Neville Chamberlain at Munich; gullible and misguided in their dealings with the Iranian mullahs; weaklings who have sacrificed the Syrian people. Column after column, Mr. Greenberg seems to imply that we must once more seize control, awaken from our slumber, and take back our position of world dominance.

But what would he have us do? What is this tough, aggressive stance about which he constantly hints? Should we invade North Korea? Russia? If we overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad, we will then stand between two opposing forces in a civil war. How many decades will we then be willing to remain enmeshed in yet another Middle Eastern conflict with no viable resolution in sight?

I applaud the measured, cautious approach I believe this administration has chosen to take in dealing with the dangerous world in which we now live. No existing government can be unaware that we still have in our possession the biggest and most impressive military in the world. If we are speaking to our enemy, we are not killing our enemy; there will be plenty of time for more killing if that conversation fails. As Americans, we love the image of ourselves riding off on a white horse to right all the wrongs of the world. But I suggest that in these explosive times, we would be better off cultivating our underused qualities of patience and diplomacy. ANN LINK Little Rock