Michael Ledeen Is Someone to Be Aware Of (PNAC, AEI)

DemBones DemBones

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Sep-08-03 11:58 PM
Original message

Michael Ledeen Is Someone to Be Aware Of (PNAC, AEI)

Unlike Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen is rarely if ever mentioned at DU. But he's a very important neo-conservative. He is a contributing editor of National Review Online (NRO) and "resident scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute." (Do you suppose it used to be called the French Chair?)

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is the think tank sponsored by PNAC. (See Stephanie's thread here in GD if you don't know what PNAC is.) Start taking note of the number of political talk show guests affiliated with AEI; these guys get out a lot. Ledeen is one I haven't seen on television, however. I became interested in him a few months ago when I read somewhere that he is a very influential neo-conservative. Then I read an article about remarks Ledeen made to JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Analysis -- another think tank) in April. Going to JINSA's site, I found myself surprised by some of his comments, including:

Ledeen argued that Iran might use nuclear weapons against Israel based on the rationale that "half of the Jewish population in the world would be killed after the attack versus a minute fraction of Muslim people killed in retaliation. It would be worth the lives of Iranians to destroy Israel."

(An interesting idea that led me to wonder if having a Jewish state is wise, being a case of putting most of your eggs in one basket and storing the basket in a dangerous location. I don't know the answer to that question. It never before occurred to me to even think of it.)

(Is there a hint of the old "the enemy places less value on lives than we do" canard? Ledeen suggests that the loss of Iranian lives in the process of destroying Israel would be acceptable to the Iranian people. Those who are old enough to remember Viet Nam and/or Korea will remember the sentiment "They don't place as much value on human life as we do.")

Ledeen also reminded the audience that both Syria and Iran sent tens of thousands of men into Iraq to aid the Iraqi Republican Guard against U.S. and allied troops.

(Has this allegation of "tens of thousands of men" being sent from Iran and Syria into Iraq ever been mentioned elsewhere?)

Ledeen outlined three lessons the U.S. learned in Iraq. First, the U.S. military "performed better than was expected both in terms of technology and the soldiers."

(Excuse me? How low were their expectations?)

Second, when the U.S. Marines went to Iran, they were welcomed by the people and were asked if they were staying to free them. "This was a blatant outcry for liberation," Ledeen said.

(Any documentation of this?)

Finally, it has become clear that Saudi Arabia is the main financier of terrorism.

(I'll buy that.)

But this paragraph contains the real kicker:

Ledeen applauded President Bush's vision of promoting the development of representative governments in the Middle East. The region, he believes, is on the verge of drastic change. As of now, the U.S. is withdrawing troops from Saudi Arabia while Qatar is experiencing democratic elections. All these developments are hopeful signs for the region. Ledeen concluded his remarks by declaring, "the time for diplomacy is at the end; it is time for a free Iran, free Syria and free Lebanon."

(Think we'll have any say in this?)

http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/1930/documentid/2012/history/3,2166,1930,2012