"The horror....the horror!"
Where is the good ol Reagan optimism when you need it?
"The horror....the horror!"
Good gosh, buck up man. The nation has faced and overcome tougher times and adversaries than these and prevailed.
Good grief. Doom and gloom. He must spend too much time reading the NY Times.
A very blunt and honest analysis. It seems correct to conclude that the momentum and resolve of the US in the war on terror has waned since we toppled Saddam. Truth be told, I think Bush has gone limp on the entire effort.
He knoew the only way to defeat International Communism was through power. However, THAT foe was relatively reasonable and held a worldview of generally peaceful coexistence. Mostly the Russians just wanted what we all want, peace and freedom to enjoy life and family.
Our new enemy wants nothing less than our subservience or our death.
Stanley Kurtz ROCKS. If you didn't read his "Hawkish Gloom" piece on yesterday's NRO (from which all the above quotes are taken), go read it now. Then, read it again. Read the links too.
Stanley's notion of the Israelization of the West — the slow change of opinion here from deep dove-hawk, lib-con differences to a glum, grim, pessimistic consensus, is spot on.
I only wonder — as of course I would — if Stanley is gloomy enough. There is a nightmare here, lurking just out of sight behind all the thoughts and articles of the gloomy-cons. The nightmare is so appalling to any civilized person I cannot bring myself to mention it. I'll just call it the g-word. Us or them. Please may it not come to that. I need a cup of coffee.
It's coming up on five years since 9/11: Iran, Syria, and North Korea are still out there. Lots of people want to see the U.S. fail. It could be a long, hard war for years to come.
Reagan 'optimism' decided to get out of Lebanon.
The best thing to be said about Lebanon since is that it hasn't been our troops in the middle of that mess, let's keep it that way.
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.
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.
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.
bump for later read
"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...
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.