To the Editor:

I would like to provide Michael Wilt (“Pelosi follows political road fraught with error,” April 11) with a different point of view on the subject of Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Syria. While he is too busy toeing the Republican Party line, perhaps he should consider the actual value of this diplomatic visit. Yes, the government of Syria and other countries in the region are obvious supporters of terrorism. But refusing to speak directly to our enemies will not remedy the situation. The U.S. government had many communications with the Russians during the Cold War, and this was invaluable in avoiding direct military combat or nuclear war. Why should we not do the same with Syria and Iran? How does it help if the U.S. completely ignores these enemy governments? Wilt would have you believe that it would teach the Syrians a lesson and because America won’t talk to them they will magically stop supporting terror. And not only that, but Iran will also change their terrorist ways because of the “example” set by America. Think about this idea. When has this ever worked? Does this make any sense at all? No. The only outcome to which this lack of communication can lead is more bloodshed. The Syrians and the Iranians are not going to give in simply because America won’t speak to them. Unless we plan to start another war (which doesn’t seem out of the question for Bush), the only way even to begin solving the problem of state-sponsored terrorism is to engage in diplomacy. By doing this, we can attack the source of the problem rather than the symptoms.

Since George Bush and the Republicans insist on acting like stubborn little children, somebody has got to step up. Pelosi has begun repairing ties with the Middle East through diplomacy, whereas Bush would rather park more troops in the region. She did end up bungling a message from Ehud Olmert’s Israeli government to Syria, but this has caused little political fallout in the region; I see this as a nonissue. The visit was praised not only by Syria but by Saudi Arabia, a key player in the Middle East power structure, as well. Also, the Iraq Study Group’s report on the Middle East situation recommends “strenuous, diplomatic negotiations with all the parties mentioned.” This is yet another example of Bush failing to listen to anyone but himself.

I fail to see how Pelosi has “impeded the work of the State Department” when there has been no diplomatic work done in regards to Syria. And she certainly isn’t usurping the “popular authority,” as can be seen by Bush’s miserable opinion polls. Pelosi seeks to get to the root of the problem, and it cannot be reached through lack of communication and eventual war. Bush is a lame-duck president, and if he is going to sit back and do nothing then it is time the Democrats had a chance at diplomacy.

Grainger Greene
Senior, Engineering