Hawkish Gloom

NRO ^ | August 08, 2006, 5:31 a.m. | Stanley Kurtz

[pissant]

That was an old Elton John song. Too bad he didn't follow trough.

[My2Cents]

You have a lot of nerve calling someone a chicken when your head is buried in the sand.

[RichInOC]

Call me a gloomy hawk. It’s not just that I’m a hawk who’s disappointed with the course of fighting in the Middle East. My concern is that our underlying foreign-policy dilemma calls for both hawkishness and gloom — and will for some time. The two worst-case scenarios are world-war abroad and nuclear terror at home.

Put me down as a vote for embarking on the former, with a view toward persuading any and all parties interested in bringing the latter to us that such would be a terminally unwise move on their part.

[Question_Assumptions]

I've lately come to the conclusion that this is going to end only when the Israelis light up the Middle East with their arsenal of nuclear weapons, either because they've been hit with a nuclear bomb or are certain they are about to be. The only question is whether millions will die, tens of millions will die, or hundreds of millions will die, and that's going to be up to the Israelis and may depend on how many Israeli's die first. And I do have some morbid curiosity about whether a post-nuking of Mecca Islam will turn introspective and peaceful, like Judaism largely did after the destruction of the Temple, will die out from disillusion, or whether they'll carry on as they do now.

Why such pessimism? Because nobody wants to stop Iran from getting nukes. Once that happens, it's only a matter of when, not if, nuclear weapons get used in anger again. And I think the United States must declare (A) that it still follows the MAD doctrine and will utterly destroy any nation that uses nuclear weapons on the US (whether the distruction is "mutual" or not and will not use a "proportional" response) and (B) that any and all state sponsors of terrorism (including North Korea, Iran, and Syria) will be considered resopnsible for any nuclear weapons used by terrorists and will be the recipients of the above-mentioned MAD response if a terrorist uses a nuclear weapon on the United States or a close ally (e.g., NATO, Israel, Japan). And if China or Russia fuss, tell them that we'll still have plenty of nukes left over to ask them if it's worth destroying their country, too, over. If the world really wanted to stop this, they'd put Iran's president down like the mad dog that he is.

[Invisible Gorilla]

A very absurd hysteric analysis by a panic striken chicken know nothing.

Thanks, I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your analysis.

[Invisible Gorilla]

Meanwhile, short of a preemptive war, Iran is bound to get the bomb. No grand bargain or set of economic sanctions can deter it — especially now that Iran is convinced of its success in creating havoc for the West, and in consolidating popular support through its proxy attacks on Western interests. As Ian Bremmer reports in “What the Israeli-Hezbollah War Means for Iran,”

Iran is convinced it’s winning, while America and Europe are increasingly convinced that a nuclear-armed Iran would be an intolerable danger to their interests. “Imagine...how much more dangerous the war in Lebanon would be if Iran had a nuclear weapon.”

Collision Course

The West is on a collision course with Iran. There will either be a preemptive war against Iran’s nuclear program, or an endless series of hot-and-cold war crises following Iran’s acquisition of a bomb. And an Iranian bomb means further nuclear proliferation to Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as a balancing move by the big Sunni states. With all those Islamic bombs floating around, what are the chances the U.S. will avoid a nuclear terrorist strike over the long-term?

Until there actually is a preemptive war against Iran to prevent it from getting nukes, Iran is winning. If the Democrats are allowed to take control of either the House or Senate in November, Iran will certainly win.

[groovejedi]

bump for later read

[JasonC]

Yep, been saying all that, and it is right. Except he retains a few unwarranted threads of mere wishful thinking, like this one -

"This is why Europe, led by France, is moving into the American corner."

Dream on. It may have been drifting that way before Iran consciously played the anti-Zionism card, but now that it has every politician in France to scrambling to put daylight between himself and those warmongering Jew loving Americans. Ahmadjehad is playing them like a fiddle, and they scream anti-Americanism whenever he wants them to.

"The internal Islamist terror Europe had hoped to avoid by distancing itself from the United States is happening anyway."

It always was, and it was and remains just another reason for that distancing.

"And Europe fears that a terrorist-supplied Iranian bomb"

Nah, Merkel and Blair say so but in the end they would much rather beat up Israel. Iran they have been begging for meaningless lies and raising their bid continually, and can't understand why Ahmadjehad doesn't let them off and take the money. Because, dum-kopfs, humiliating you is worth more to him than your money. He can get all the money he needs from the oil markets. In the end the EU will settle for meaningless sanctions.

The cheery bit that he leaves out is that the hawks have staked out for themselves the only viable long run policy, and they've been roundly condemned and castigated for it, and it will not be implemented. "If you give advice to a prince, and it not being taken disaster follows, you will reap great glory" - said Machiavelli.

The left and the appeasers are going to get their fondest wish. They are going to get power and they are going to get to appease the terrorists. And it isn't going to work at all.

Then someone will be sitting pretty politically. Granted, the country will be in the crapper, and western civilization with it. But the blame, and the credit! Ah, those are the real stakes aren't they?

We are all fools...

[Mamzelle]

re: If liberals are lost in wishful thinking about the prospects)))

I don't believe this--rather, I think they are utterly cyncial and know full well their ideology can't work. They just think this position will put them back in power.

[JasonC]

Let's see.

1 million Algerian dead.

2 million Vietnamese dead.

1 million Iranian dead.

Nope, doesn't remotely stop any of it. Tyrants don't care how many bodies a policy costs.

War we always have with us. Ruthlessness doesn't make it go away. We can win any of them (we are winning in Iraq easily), but we can't get out of a single one.

And if the American people decide that they will only count as a victory, the absence of any war whatever, anywhere, no matter how lopsidedly won - then they condemn themselves to defeat, endlessly. Because the least little two bit militia in Somalia can manage that much. No matter how many times you've made the rubble bounce.

[JasonC]

Fine be me. Let it. Then when they can't stop the Iranians, they get all the blame for it, too.

[notigar]

Yeah, and maybe we stop sending bodies in places they don't need to be. Ulnless you think its that important....in which case, why aren't you there??

[JasonC]

They need to be wherever anybody else wants to take a poke at us, which is up to them not us. Having world power means war endlessly, like it or not, not up to you. It means martial valor and political unity as far as the eye can see, or defeat - take your pick. And oh the second won't stop either, until they reappear.

[notigar]

Hey, if you truly believe its that important, why aren't you there?

[JasonC]

Also, let's just cut to the chase and establish a military aristocracy right now. After all, there is no reason for mere civilians to be consulted on grave matters of international politics. I propose that only decorated veterans be eligible for public office, or able to vote. And to make it a true aristocracy, let's have one vote per medal, wound, step in rank, and year of service. So the sad sacks don't ruin it, you know. I'm sure that is what you meant, right? I'm all for it, let's make the change. Or are you just another hypocrite?

[JasonC]

My service was 15-20 years ago, and now I make software instead. It helps, you can be sure of that. You do agree to abolish voting by all these pestilent civilian traitors, don't you?

[sinkspur]

Truth be told, I think Bush has gone limp on the entire effort.

Americans are, at bottom, wimps. It's not Bush who has lost his resolve, it's his opponents and the Democrat party.

Which one of those do you belong to?

[notigar]

hypocrite? that would mean I'm really for something, but not willing to do what I could about it. feeling a little guilty?

[notigar]

Good for you then. But your service was in a five year window? Never heard of that type.

[JasonC]

Nope, not at all. You love chickenhawk nonsense so I assume you are in favor of an aristocratic regime in which all power rests only with veterans. I'm in favor of that too, let's get cracking. I'm simply waiting for you to endorse the proposal.