Victor Davis Hanson: Doomsday Debunked. The Middle East is not falling down

NRO ^ | September 19, 2007 | Victor Davis Hanson

[Tolik]

Something quite strange is happening: Despite all the bad news about the Middle East from the European and American media, things actually seem to be improving.

Iraq is getting better, and the opposition to the war is, in the current campaign cycle, is starting to shift away from the “war is lost” to something more like “stabilizing the government over time would not be worth the cumulative cost in American lives and treasure.”

All sober Democrats realize not only that the Moveon.org ad was a political disaster, but more importantly, that the Moveon.org/Michael Moore/Cindy Sheehan/Hollywood ticking bombs actually scare off Americans, even as they demand more influence among the candidates.

In the Middle East, Bin Laden’s approval ratings are way down; polls show that the tactic of suicide bombing has suffered a similar fate of declining popularity. Bin Laden’s latest dyed-beard rant was pathetic, and ultimately only hurt him. For all the slurs about ”neocons” and “democratization” there, reform perseveres. The Lebanese government has not fallen, but instead has moved against terrorists. Hamas has isolated itself, and suicide bombing from the West Bank has fallen sharply; the two factions in Palestine are clarifying things in a positive way, and the anti-Hamas Palestinian “Authority” could, in theory, start to resemble mutatis mutandis the realignments taking place in Anbar.

Pakistan seems to be ever so gradually and carefully inching back to constitutional elections. The next generation in Libya wants change. Something happened in Syria as a result of that air strike, which emphasizes that the Syrian-Iranian-North Korea axis is real (in spite of all the visits by Dennis Kucinich and Nancy Pelosi), and makes one wonder not just about Korea and Iran, but perhaps even about the role of Saddam’s exiled technicians and/or their equipment in all this.

While the media talks only about the supposed impending strikes on Iran, the real news is that the theocracy is tottering as never before. The threat of ’constitutional governments nearby, in Afghanistan and Iraq, is intolerable for Iran. Syria and Iran, far from being the “real winners” from our “debacle” in Iraq, are actually more isolated than ever before, and are winning a new host of enemies, most notably in the Arab world.

If this were to continue, and I think there is a good chance it will, then the Democrats need to start once again readjusting, especially on Iraq. They might want to consider a tactic along the following lines: their initial votes for the removal of Iraq were sound and not to be apologized for; then their timely constant haranguing led to the necessary changes that came kicking and screaming; and now thanks to their vigilance there is some hope of resolution—combined with reminders that they always supported principled aid for Middle East reformers.

Geopolitically, the face of European leaders seems almost unrecognizable from its 2003 visage. Sarkozy and the French on Iran sound like the U.S. on Iraq in the late 1990s. Fear of Islamism has made the Swiss, Danish, and Dutch appear almost as 16th-century Europeans fearing the Ottomans. Even anti-American Greece, amid the forest fire outrage, reelected a conservative government.

Russian thuggery has scared its neighbors to the west. China has been terribly tainted by its manufacturing scandals and reminded the world that it is an autocratic state after all. China, India, Europe, and the U.S. are all getting tired of $80 per barrel of oil, and especially of the notion that those who work hard to produce are forced to fork over their profits to those who simply pump and cause mischief.

All in all, the world is in flux as never before, and the tired adjectives “disaster,” “fiasco,” and “blunder” just don’t describe the present state of global affairs, or the U.S. role in them.

In truth, the future dangers — aside, perhaps, from an Iranian bomb—are not so much political or military as fiscal: a protectionist EU that racks up surpluses with a strong Euro but has too high unemployment and entitlements for an aging population; skyrocketing energy prices; and alarming U.S. debt and trade imbalances.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University

[Tolik]

    Victor Davis Hanson Ping ! 

       Let me know if you want in or out.

Links:    FR Index of his articles:  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson
                His website: http://victorhanson.com/
                NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
                Pajamasmedia:   http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/

[lormand]

"For all the slurs about ”neocons” and “democratization” there, reform perseveres."

Like I often tell libs and Ron Paulistinians, history will judge them harshly.

[Captain Kirk]

Pangloss Pollyanna Hanson Ping!

[3AngelaD]

I love this forum. No one on Kos even knows who Pangloss is. Now, I feel like working in my garden.

[George W. Bush]

Sober VDH commentary.

[Captain Kirk]

Well.....I gotta admit that I kind of admire Pangloss is a way, much like I admire the Knight in the Holy Grail who keeps on fighting even though he he has lost his limbs.

[romanesq]

For once, I disagree with VDH. I think he underestimates the response by Iran and its proxies to these developments.

What they will do is escalate the violence in any number of ways. And that will be bad as any descent will be into madness.

Said not as a voice of appeasement but as a concern of the enemy’s intentions to the region and the West.

[Tolik]

http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/2007/09/18/middle_east_and_midwest.php

Something is going on in the Middle East

What are we to make of these reoccurring stories of various weapons of mass destruction incidents in Syria, whether the accident in July of Iranians and Syrians arming Scud missiles with mustard (or sarin?) gas, or recent Syrian nuclear depositories being bombed by Israelis.

A number of issues arise: are the Gulf monarchies, Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan essentially staying mum, with the quiet understanding that Israel is to be given a green light, if it acts stealthily, to contain these threats?

Is there a link to Saddam’s former arsenal and fugitive technicians—the now taboo missing WMD? Other clerical statements from once Sunni radicals, and recent polls of the Arab Street reveal a Sunni reaction to al Qaedism, as if the Anbar syndrome is spreading at the nation state level.

I know the anti-war talking points are that Iran is in “the driver’s seat” after our “catastrophe” in Iraq. But that pessimism is premature, and in fact probably flat wrong. Our lining up of concerned anti-Iranian allies in the Middle East, Europe, and inside Iraq, Iran’s own suicidal economic policies, and ethnic tensions, and the position of American troops near the border, have in fact weakened Iran. If we can turn Shiite militias, arrest even more Iranians inside Iraq, and get the Europeans on board for stiff sanctions, the regime will be isolated as never before. Ditto Syria.

When one looks at recent events in Lebanon with the crushing of the terrorist camp, the new generation in Libya, and the isolation of Hamas, the entire region is now in flux. And that is not necessarily bad, given its history the last quarter-century.

If I were the Democrats, I would keep silent and watch, and taper off from the “Bush’s Middle East is a disaster” line, especially if Afghanistan and Iraq settle down. Why not brag and try to take credit for the surge—claiming their criticism resulted in more troops and changes at the Pentagon?

The Moveon.org ad was a political disaster, akin to the Chicago convention of 1968. That the candidates now have a deer-in-the-headlights look to questions about it shows how invested they are in the Cindy Sheehan/Michael Moore/Hollywood wing that gives them very little wiggle room, but apparently lots of money and threats. The Republicans faced the same challenge in the 1950s with the McCarthyites, anti-Semites, John Birch Society sympathizers, and neo-Confederates, and finally shed them, and the Republicans, despite minority party status, went on to take the White House for 36 years of the 56 between 1953 and 2008.

We have well over a year until the election, and many things can happen that we scarcely expect.

<...continue...>
 

[r9etb]

In truth, the future dangers — aside, perhaps, from an Iranian bomb—are not so much political or military as fiscal: a protectionist EU that racks up surpluses with a strong Euro but has too high unemployment and entitlements for an aging population; skyrocketing energy prices; and alarming U.S. debt and trade imbalances.

Hanson's "aside" is the real issue, however, Fiscal and political issues will be most important ... IF the nice folks in Iran, Syria, and Greater Wahabistan decide to collapse in a nice, neat manner.

But what if they don't play according to plan? What if Ahneedajihad and his mullah pals can hold on long enough to develop, deploy, and use their nukes? What if Bashir Assad decides to prop up his regime by plastering Israel with WMDs?

It's been clear for a long time now, that the salamikazes' strategy is to foment violence along religious lines. They want a direct confrontation between Islam (as they define it) and the rest of the world. They've shown themselves to be very capable of recruiting "disaffected [Westernized] Youths".

And they've shown the stamp of Ishmael:

"Behold, you are pregnant and shall bear a son. You shall call his name Ishmael, because the LORD has listened to your affliction. He shall be a wild donkey of a man, his hand against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen." (Gen. 16:11-12)

Put another way, it's likely that their weakness will be accompanied by ever more wild behavior. How does that factor into Hanson's analysis?

[Tolik]

Good questions. Can't speak for VDH, and I don't have the answers myself, just a few somewhat related thoughts:

I think that Osama had a point framing the conflict in language of a weak horse v strong horse. Besides realities on the ground, there is a realm of perceptions. Right from the beginning, it looks to me, one of the important aspects of our actions was to send a message - don't mess with us. Now, The Left here and abroad is venomously against sending this message and does everything to compromise it. Ladenistas are very shrewd in playing out the useful idiots. As we are now, its still very much open question who is the strong horse. What supports VDH optimism is that our military is not just the strongest, but shows capability to quickly learn and correct mistakes. There is no doubt that many things could have been done better from the very beginning. But even with 20/20 hindsight we have arguments of whose understanding of "better" is better. Nevertheless, many thing in Iraq are looking up. With the success will come a perception of US as the strong horse, and Jihadists will get less of a support. Nothing is going to happen overnight and as a miracle; a constant pressure needs to be applied, and more mistakes will be made and more corrections will be made too. But what is clear is that we never had a choice of the Middle East swamps draining out by themselves, and the decision to go and drain them now versus waiting and waiting was correct (IMHO of course).

Speaking about Iran. They have numerous vulnerabilities. When Europeans unite with US to apply pressure (that they never did against Iraq), and they do show signs of cooperation now, a direct war with Iran may be avoided. I'd also like to see much more pressure applied to Saudis, the "madrassa" money still flow freely.

All that said, how anybody can protect himself from a suicidal maniac lashing out on rampage in a crowded cinema, etc I don't know. There are too many nightmare scenarios. What is doable is to limit state support, safe heavens, i.e. make accountable the more conventional targets first.

[Billthedrill]

Interesting commentary. The difficulty is that the Dems in particular (and a fair sampling of their Euro soulmates) don't recognize any new geopolitical situation that doesn't fall into accordance with their fantasy-world precepts of anticolonialism, multiculturalism, and international sanction for the prices of stamps at everyone's corner post office. For much of this they'll be the last to know, and if action might be required to adjust it, the last to see opportunity go whizzing by.

This is hardly the first time alliances have shifted to quietly address a shifting threat. It is to be recalled that Syria joined the anti-Saddam coalition in '90 and that Saudi Arabia hosted it. Iran is not having its way in Iraq despite all the bellowing from MSM "experts." It is in a tactical retreat as those who accepted its opportunistic support now find that the Iraqis have had enough of the bombings and that the old tribes are becoming less tolerant of the new militias.

It will therefore find some sort of demonstration in Lebanon necessary to maintain its crumbling facade of Middle East clout. That clout is still extremely formidable but fragile largely for logistical reasons. Expect a propaganda offensive very soon.

As for what Syria was trying to set up with increasingly apparent North Korean help, there are several possibilities and none of them are good. Syria can't afford a full-blown nuclear program, but it might use what it can obtain if Assad really does lose that last marble down the drain of the bathroom sink. It already has chemical programs and has for years. Their use depends on a plausible deniability that is afforded them by Hezbollah. How plausible that really is depends on Western credulity and Iranian smokescreening.

$80 per barrel oil is sustainable only in the face of increasing demand. It will be extremely significant if the increase drops off due to, say, a recession or other readjustment in demand for manufactured products. Demand may not decrease much very soon but at $80 other sources become increasingly feasible. That may seem to have little directly to do with the price of bombs in Islamabad, but it does. As far as how much those bombs are used in London or Paris or Berlin, that's a long way down the chain and we're going to be dealing with that aspect of the Middle East mess for a very long time to come. IMHO.

[Valin]

See tagline

[Valin]

“Interesting commentary. The difficulty is that the Dems in particular (and a fair sampling of their Euro soulmates) don’t recognize any new geopolitical situation that doesn’t fall into accordance with their fantasy-world precepts”

Ditto the “Nuke Mecca crowd”.

[fabian]

that’s why Irans willingness to make war with their twisted vision needs to be destroyed quickly. Something on the par with what we had to do with Japan in world war two, although I believe we could do it mainly to their military infrastructure rather than their cities.

[r9etb]

What supports VDH optimism is that our military is not just the strongest, but shows capability to quickly learn and correct mistakes.

There's another thing, too, which he doesn't mention: American soldiers really are "the good guys."

According to Michael Totten's reports, he says one of the major factors in Anbar has been the way in which American soldiers, just by acting like Americans, have made a huge difference in how they, and al-Qaeda, are perceived.

"Being American" has made a huge impact, pretty much wherever our troops have spent time in large numbers. The effect has almost always been beneficial to our interests.

[r9etb]

It's a true tagline ... in time, "history" -- or, more properly, the actual course of events -- will either justify or invalidate VDH's opinion.

But the statement is perhaps unhelpful in sorting out whether VDH's optimism with regard to Iran is justified.

What's important now, to our current decision-makers, is the second part: the short-term perceptions and decisions are what make up the long-term sequence that defines "history."

If Hanson's line is to be believed, it might be enough simply to hold on long enough for Iran to collapse on its own. But if Iran's leadership is fundamentally irrational and prone to striking out, waiting is no longer as attractive an option.

[maica]

But what is clear is that we never had a choice of the Middle East swamps draining out by themselves, and the decision to go and drain them now versus waiting and waiting was correct (IMHO of course).

####

Correct. President Bush saw this from Day One, when he said that he was for a two-state solution in ‘Palestine” and then shut down contact with Arafat as a start. Of course, he will get no credit from the dbm.

[Earthdweller]

"Being American" has made a huge impact, pretty much wherever our troops have spent time in large numbers. The effect has almost always been beneficial to our interests.

LOL..American soldiers knocking down 1400 years of programing in six years. Why am I not surprised.

Face to face communication has always been the key to lasting peace. This is something radical Islam fears will cut off their centuries old political stranglehold.

This reminds me of a funny story...

When my spouse and his sibs conflicted without relief as children my Mother-in-law would sit them in a room in two chairs facing one another. At first they would make angry faces and spout off hateful comments. As time went on they began to tire of the "fight" and when all was said and done they were laughing and the conflict was over.

Isn't it amazing what communication can accomplish over time on a person to person level? This admin deserves the credit for making it all possible.

God Bless our Soldiers. Policy and great thinkers with vision placed them where they needed to be, but, if our service men and women were not truly good human beings, the miraculous changes we are seeing would never have been accomplished.