Before I was a hawk, I was a liberal.  Part of my transformation to “neocon” was due to the fact that the Democratic Party was hi-jacked by the MoveOn.org crowd.  Liberals, in their intense dislike of Bush, gave in to a faith in illogical hatred–motivated by an any-means-necessary hatred of Bush, which Charles Krauthammer termed Bush Derangement Syndrome–so much so, even, that they have all but written off the very real threat of Islamo-fascism and terrorism.

But it goes deeper than that.  During the Clinton era, Democrats and Liberals were not so quick to decry war in whatever form it took.  The Balkans did not raise such an intense fuss that the entire Party was usurped by peace-nicks.  The first Gulf War went off without much protest, and certainly without the virulence and vitriol we see today.

The funny thing to me is that I was against this second invasion of Iraq, along with many other liberals, but once we had invaded, once we had invested ourselves in this fight–and the Iraqi people–my dissent ended–not my criticism of tactics or the rushed invasion, but my dissent over the war itself.  I recalled the preemptive move out of Iraq in the early 90’s.  The Iraqi people that had risen up to help us were then beaten back down by Saddam Hussein, utterly abandoned by America.

(more…)

GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD formally endorses Dr Condoleezza Rice as GOP VP candidate. 

Politically - it’s the killer move - totally marginalizing the Donkey Party with a self made grrl on the ticket. The powder puff pieces in the Lame Stream Media would be sweet. “OMG! Didn’t know she knew innocent victims of the Birmingham bombing way back in the day.” Or “Her fave color is peridot - she loves chocolate chip cookies!”

Her positive ratings are almost nigh unchanged since day one - 69% - way better than HRC, John Edwards - or any GOP contenders.

Any flak on Iraq will seem like sour grapes completely owned by the ‘defeat, retreat and repeat” posse.

Dr Rice would most likely point out that unhinged neoconphobic regimes, fanbois, ammoral realpolitikers and boring isolationists are way out of touch.

“The process of democratization is likely to be messy and unsatisfactory, but it
is absolutely necessary. Democracy, it is said, cannot be imposed, particularly
by a foreign power. This is true but beside the point. It is more likely that
tyranny has to be imposed.

The story today is rarely one of peoples resisting the basics of democracy –
the right to choose those who will govern them and other basic freedoms. It is,
instead, about people choosing democratic leaders and then becoming impatient
with them and holding them accountable on their duty to deliver a better life.

It is strongly in our national interest to help sustain these leaders,
support their countries’ democratic institutions, and ensure that their new
governments are capable of providing for their own security, especially when
their nations have experienced crippling conflicts.”

Plus, Dr Rice could be essential in the wake of rowdy Russia. Projecting the sexyful appeal of democrazy and constant confrontation and selective intervention for nations that seek to draw closer to Great Satan in scary parts of the world.

 And finally turning loose America’s preimer Kremlinologist with an ubound agenda on Russia would most likely fit Senator McCain’s vision of future world - where intolerant bullies, creeps, jerks and retards are - their own choice mind you - marginalized, co opted,  democratised or annihilated.

Joe Klein over at Time makes a great case for drug testing journalists (though to be fair - they rarely hold real jobs - like arresting criminals, building stuff, growing food, teaching or killing enemies).

Responding to super fly Dr Robert Kagan (Oh! He got game!) and his Putin’s move making WaPo essay Time scribe Klein became mentis non compos.

Dr Kagan laid it prett straight - chalking up a historic moment:

“The events of the past week will be remembered that way, too. This war did not begin because of a miscalculation by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili.

It is a war that Moscow has been attempting to provoke for some time

. The man who once called the collapse of the Soviet Union “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century” has reestablished a virtual czarist rule in Russia and is trying to restore the country to its once-dominant role in Eurasia and the world.

 

Armed with wealth from oil and gas; holding a near-monopoly over the energy supply to Europe; with a million soldiers, thousands of nuclear warheads and the world’s third-largest military budget, Vladimir Putin believes that now is the time to make his move.”

Klein freaked and launched a rambling, discombobulating pitifully unwondrous example of weak minded, weak willed, out of touch, weeded up paranoia prose pose and not to put too fine a point on it - BORING and embarrassing.

It’s not Russia, Ossetia or Abkhazia. Or even Kosovo.

It’s raining neocons!

“But it is important, yet again, to call out the endless neoconservative search for new enemies, mini-Hitlers. It is the product of an abstract over-intellectualizing of the world, the classic defect of ideologues. It is, as we have seen the last eight years, a dangerous way to behave internationally.

And it has severely damaged our moral authority in the world…I mean,
after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, after Abu Ghraib, after our blithe rubbishing of the Geneva Accords, why should anyone listen to us when we criticize the Russians for their aggression in the Caucasus?”

 

Finally! A regime change Klein can live with it!

Klein’s klutzy irony is easily addressed.

1st off, tolerant egalitarian societies with all the hot stickie goodies like transparent, periodic elections, free, uncensored press, an indy judiciary under elected Gov oversight, a military under civie control and a nat’l treasury under public accountability are like kryptonite in Smallville.

Autocrazies, despotries, tyrannies (horrid or benign) cannot help but to act out against free societies. Especially any in weapons range.

Such malignant magnetism is a cool homage to Great Satan and all her democratic best grrlfriends forever.

“Creative destruction is Great Satan’s middle name. It is a natural function, for she is the one truly revolutionary country in the world for more than 2 centuries. She does it automatically, and that is precisely why the tyrants hate her guts, and are driven to attack her.

An enormous advantage, tyrants fear her, and their oppressed peoples want what she offers: freedom. “

So, intolerant, unfree, (some nigh unhinged), illegit, murderous, corrupt regimes having their feelings, purses, prestige and control freak apparatus dissed, damaged or marginalized is “…a dangerous way to behave? ”

Au Contraire Mon Frer’ !

It is exactly how hot! democracies should behave - constant confrontation and selective intervention - letting geopolitical gangstas act out militarily is the perfect catylyst for a sexyful diplopolitical future military hook up.

Neo bashing RE: Russia vs Georgia (psychically predicted and followed up by American Power) is not confined to neoconspiracy Klein. Confauxderates, ammoral corrupt cult of stability accolytes, the enemy of my nation is my friend anarchy heirarchy heralds a phony daemoneoconic cacophony that seems retarded - in the classic sense no less.

Freely elected President of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvilli survey’s the stakes.

“Most obviously, the future of my country is at stake. The people of
Georgia have spoken with a loud and clear voice: They see their future in Europe. Georgia is an ancient European nation, tied to Europe by culture, civilization and values.

In January, three in four Georgians voted in a referendum to support membership in NATO. These aims are not negotiable; now, we are paying the price for our democratic ambitions.

Second, Russia’s future is at stake. Can a Russia that wages aggressive war on its neighbors be a partner for Europe? It is clear that Russia’s current leadership is bent on restoring a neocolonial form of control over the entire space once governed by Moscow.

If Georgia falls, this will also mean the fall of the West in the entire
former Soviet Union and beyond. Leaders in neighboring states — whether in Ukraine, in other Caucasian states or in Central Asia — will have to consider whether the price of freedom and independence is indeed too high.”

It’s pretty much the case now that any international crisis involving the potential deployment of U.S. military power will be denounced as a “neocon plot” by many in the left-wing press and blogosphere.

Think Progress continues the genre with their sensational post this morning upon news of a possible cessation of hostilities in the Causcasus: “Ceasefire in Georgia Dashes Neocon Predictions of Russian Expansion in The Region.”

Taking it even further is Robert Scheer, who argues that neoconservatives are manufacturing a foreign policy crisis: “Georgia War a Neocon Election Ploy?“:

Is it possible that this time the October surprise was tried in August, and that the garbage issue of brave little Georgia struggling for its survival from the grasp of the Russian bear was stoked to influence the U.S. presidential election?

Before you dismiss that possibility, consider the role of one Randy Scheunemann, for four years a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government who ended his official lobbying connection only in March, months after he became Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s senior foreign policy adviser.

Previously, Scheunemann was best known as one of the neoconservatives who engineered the war in Iraq when he was a director of the Project for a New American Century. It was Scheunemann who, after working on the McCain 2000 presidential campaign, headed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which championed the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

There are telltale signs that he played a similar role in the recent Georgia flare-up. How else to explain the folly of his close friend and former employer, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, in ordering an invasion of the breakaway region of South Ossetia, an invasion that clearly was expected to produce a Russian counterreaction? It is inconceivable that Saakashvili would have triggered this dangerous escalation without some assurance from influential Americans he trusted, like Scheunemann, that the United States would have his back. Scheunemann long guided McCain in these matters, even before he was officially running foreign policy for McCain’s presidential campaign.

In 2005, while registered as a paid lobbyist for Georgia, Scheunemann worked with McCain to draft a congressional resolution pushing for Georgia’s membership in NATO. A year later, while still on the Georgian payroll, Scheunemann accompanied McCain on a trip to that country, where they met with Saakashvili and supported his bellicose views toward Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

Scheunemann is at the center of the neoconservative cabal that has come to dominate the Republican candidate’s foreign policy stance in a replay of the run-up to the war against Iraq. These folks are always looking for a foreign enemy on which to base a new Cold War, and with the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime it was Putin’s Russia that came increasingly to fit the bill.

Yes, it sounds diabolical, but that may be the most accurate way to assess the designs of the McCain campaign in matters of war and peace. There is every indication that the candidate’s demonization of Russian leader Putin is an even grander plan than the previous use of Saddam to fuel American militarism with the fearsome enemy that it desperately needs.

Diabolical? God, that’s taking things to the extreme.

I noted previously that even Democratic foreign policy eminences, like former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, have seen naked Russian brutality and hegemony in Russia’s war with Georgia.

So there’s no doubt that anti-neocon fervor has been quickly stoked by war the Russo-Georgia war.

In this case, the push to discredit neocons has an interesting electoral component, not just in Scheunemann’s ties to Georgia, but also in the situation that McCain has long warned of Russian bellicosity, and his foresight is another strong reminder of his unrivaled foreign policy experience this year.

As Ben Smith noted yesterday:

While virtually every other world leader called for calm in Georgia last Thursday morning, John McCain did something he’s done many times during his career in public life: He condemned Russia….

McCain’s confrontational stance on the Caucasus crisis stems from a long, personal skepticism of Russian intentions, one that dates back to the Cold War and that eased only briefly in the early 1990s.

Indeed, McCain, who publicly confronted Putin in Munich last year, may be the most visible — and now potentially influential — American antagonist of Russia. What remains to be seen is whether the endgame to the Georgia crisis makes McCain seem prophetic or headstrong and whether his muscular rhetoric plays a role in defining for voters the kind of commander in chief he would be.

What is not in doubt is McCain’s view of Russia. His belief that Moscow harbors dangerous aspirations goes back a long way, as does his fervent view that the only way to quiet the Russian bear is through tough talk and threat of real consequences — and certainly not through accommodation.

This kind of strategic clarity is anathema to the Democratic left. For example, check out Josh Marshall, who is sounding tocsin in his post on McCain, “Dangerous and Unstable.”

There’s a whole lot of left-wing unseriousness on foreign policy this season, but the Georgia crisis has really shown how genuinely silly many of these people are.

~cross-posted at American Power

Online for less than a year, American Power has earned a spot in the top tiers of Great Satan’s intelligentsia. Created by So Cal Poli Sci guy Dr. Donald Douglas (Oh! He got game! ), Am Pow is essential reading in the new millennium.

Neophilosophical mindcandy that consistently makes the case for the undeniably sexy appeal of fun, freedom of choice and certifiable democrazy with insightful analysis, commentary and expertise on a wide variety of subjects - Foreign Policy, Education, American and Foreign politics, culture, International relationships - all from an unbound neoconservative perspective.

AmPow’s “Pro Victory” stance and determined daemoneoconic devotion has generated support, robust debate and PR at sundry sites like Air America to Atlantic Monthly. AmPow’s influence routinely and regularly stars at Real Clear Politics “Best of the Blogs” series.

A true son of So Cali, before he was Dr Douglas he was a champion skateboardist, a homie and peer of Tony Hawk, rocked out with cutting edge rock harbingers like Black Flag and Social Distortion and supported American Intervention in the Balkans way back in the 1990’s.

He excelled so well in school, truly in love with booklearning and a first class communicator, a career in education seemed a perfect match.

GsGf correspondants recently won the highly coveted op to snag an iview with the hot doc (code named Americaneocon) and put the journalistic moves on at the recent super secret neocon coven “Committee Of Five” annual super secret Grand Strategy hook up.

GsGf - What was the spark to create American Power?

Dr Douglas - The fact is, when I started blogging I had just finished teaching a new course, Introduction to Political Theory. More so than other political philosophies covered in the class, I was drawn to Burkean thought for its emphasis on custom and tradition.

“Burkean Reflections” was my first weblog.

I especially liked Burke’s emphasis on continuity in culture - on prescriptive authority found in a nation’s historical associations and traditions, and how such bases of authority formed a bulwark against revolutionary movements, and the rise of authoritarian leadership.

I thus thought Burkean conservatism would provide excellent foundations for a traditionalist’s analyisis of poltics and world affairs.

GsGf - What happened? What compelled you to ditch old school diplopoli philosophy in the new millennium?

Dr Douglas - While Burke will remain a key pillar of my thinking on the best social order, my forward orientation on America power and U.S. foreign policy diverges substantially from orthodox conceptions of Burkean restraint in foreign affairs.

I became increasingly distressed under a Burkean identity of classical conservatism. disgusted, frankly, by some of the uses of Burke among some old-guard conservatives, who’ve championed Burke in a program of outright American isolationism and reactionary doctrines.

GsGf - By “Restraint in Foreign Affairs” you mean the Iraq war.

Dr Douglas -Most of my blogging was on Iraq, and I started to realize that I was really neoconservative more than a Burkean conservative, so after I learned that paleoconservatives champion Burke as their intellectual pedigree I created American Power.

GsGf - What were the inspirations?

Dr Douglas - A couple of articles further convinced me that it was time to firmly authenticate the neoconservative foundations of American Power.

One of these is a New York Times essay by David Brooks. An agenda of global democracy promotion is well within the established traditions of twentieth-century U.S. foreign policy, from Wilson to Reagan.

There’s no ignominy in the push to harness U.S. hegemony for the expansion of world freedom.

Second, that has affirmed the importance of making more clear the ideological identity for my writing, Joshua Muravchik’s October 2007 essay in Commentary Magazine, “The Past, Present, and Future of Neoconservatism.”

Muravchik makes an awesome case - absolutely no apologies - for the power of neoconservative thought thus far and in the years ahead. The essay offers a fairly comprehensive review of neoconservativism’s development.

This article’s a modern classic, and those who so easily and utterly dismiss neoconservatism would be irresponsible to disengage from the arguments it presents. Muravchik concludes the piece by rightly noting that neoconservatism isn’t foolproof, that it doesn’t hold all the answers.

What it does do is offer a coherent and compelling approach to meeting today’s international challenges, not the least of these being the war on terror. Those who so easily and utterly dismiss neoconservatism would be irresponsible to disengage from the arguments it presents.

GsGf - What are America’s National Interests?

Dr Douglas - The national interest historical defined has physical/economic security of the state can be very narrow. It can lead to isolationism for a great power. Today, if a “realist” national interest conception would return to favor, we’d “off-shore” our political-miltary responsiblities around the world, starting with Iraq, and then with a realignment of our basing overseas.

GsGf - Wouldn’t that be ammoral or immoral to outsource America’s projection - or rejection of projection?

Dr Douglas - It’s not moral or immoral, but simply a choice on the appropriate use of our resources and power. Unfortunatly, “national interest” can be construed so narrowly as to be isolationist.

America historically in the indispensible great power. I think the world would be less free and stable of we adopted a “come home America” national interest foreign policy.

GsGf - And Regime Changes?

Dr Douglas - The question of whether or not to intervene’s relative, depending on a range of factors, but genocidal circumstances and the failure of multinational responses ought to be precipitous factors. We should have no more Rwandas or Darfurs, to say the least.

And the case could be made that criminal negligence, as in this year’s case of Burma, might be added to the notion triggers on the responsibility to protect. The national interest includes moral responsibility, where material capabilities are used for the expansion of liberties and values.

GsGf - Could humanitarian needs be a trigger for interventions?

Dr Douglas - It depends on international circumstances. The U.N. structures can work if there’s a commonality of interests among the key actors. Humanitarian assistance can be facilitated without regime change. But when nations refuse to act amid genocidal-scale disasters, outside action should be considered. Today, Zimbabwe is not yet such a situation.

Kenya earler this year wasn’t quite on the level where we’d see calls for outside action. We’d need to see something of world historical enormity to rouse the normal recalitrance to override the norm of sovereignty for outside intervention to be seen as acceptable. There’s a political calculation in all of this, so smart politics will advise proportionate responses.

GsGf - Am Pow tends to have a laissez-faire view on personal freedoms - secular in a way compared to many conservative voices per se - is this significant?

Dr Douglas - I’m kinda of into the religious values thing, only to the extent that we respect Judeo Christian values against anti-Western nihilism.

GsGf - May I ask one last question?

Dr Douglas - You just did.

GsGf - Oh, then may I ask you one more after this one?

Dr Douglas - (laughs) Certainly!

GsGf - Why does neoconservatism face such ardent foes? Are these willful mischaracterations or honest ignorance?

Dr Douglas - The left hates neoconservatism first on foremost for the powerful role leading neocons played in the lead up to Iraq.

From postmodern leftists, where forces, essentially, can’t ever be considered, neocons are the enemy.

But if you look at it closely, neocons are almost exactly opposite on the issues most important to the left. Where liberals want the U.S. to be humble and focus on multilateral compromise and even supranational authority over the U.S. (the U.N), neoconservatives reject these themes, instead pushing a righteous moralism in upholding American power and values, as well as a refusal to subordinate American interests to foreign states or international institutions.

We’d have to sort out some other factors, but the fact that “neocons” have become the shorthand scourge for so many antiwar leftists it’s fairly clear the movements simply a lightning rod and easy ideological demon.
Postmodernism is fundamentally challenged by neoconservatism moral optimism and stunningly unabashed willingness to promote the national interest by use of military power. “

I have added some new blogs to the links page:

Monkey in the Middle

Monkey in the Middle is a children’s game played with 3 children and a ball. The rules are simple. 2 children throw the ball to each other and the 3rd child is between them and tries to catch it.

But there are times I feel like I’m playing it as the Monkey with the truth as the ball, and the throwers those who would distort the truth.

Here I will attempt to sort out the truth from the fiction and lies. There will be no spin or propaganda here.

Hopefully you my reader will find this site an informative one and will visit it often.

YID with LID

Head over to YID with LID and read this, this, and this.

Israel Matzav

I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me ‘ultra-Orthodox.’ Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don’t look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for twenty-six years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 4 to 24 years and one grandson. Our eldest daughter is married and our eldest son is engaged! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com

Woman Honor Thyself

“I will fill myself with Love And send that out into the world. How others treat me is their path How I react is mine.” 

Ah…about me huh?..lolz..I am obsessed with knowledge, music, dance and sports..Did I leave anything out?…Hmmm…Work on myself to be more compassionate and accepting of the Pain Factory we call “Life.”

Loveeeeeeeeeeee country rock, rock, some classical music and anything I can dance too..grinz.
Can read anything from Ayn Rand to Terry Goodkind to feminist writings to political and psychological and philosophical works.
Whew…ok thats it for now..lolz

And head over to Great Satan’s Girlfriend for Courtney’s latest on Taiwan.

American Power has an excellent discussion of neoconservatism that is certainly worth the read.  More on both these later…

There is an ancient wax like thingy from way back in the last millenium called a ‘Long Play Record’ or LP in the ancient tongue. Kinda round and frisbee like - they have a tiny tiny hole in the center.

They were packaged in ‘Album Covers’ and on the back of it they featured ‘liner notes’. Ancient PR - way before the net, blogs, satellite radio and MTV, MTV1, MTV2,VH1 and videos in general.

During this Nick at Night TV Land era, before Rock and Roll was transformed into Rock, bands of Brit Cats ‘invaded’ the states with a wild, new sound that wiped clean and drew again the face of pop music.

Hot on the heels of the Moptops (who were alledgedly bigger than Baby Jesus) were a gang of 5 that are still around in name today - The Rolling Stones.

On one of their first ‘records’ the liner notes featured a crazy, cool rant by their manager - Andrew Loog Oldham. Appealing to the inherent ‘hooliganism’ of baby booming kids in the Great Satan these notes commanded the kids

“If you haven’t the money for this record, then knock a blind beggar on the head
and steal his money”

In a way, this could be applied (in jest y’all - that means teasing - harmless joshing) to the latest pub by Dr Fred Kaplan. (more…)

Well, okay, Obama didn’t actually say “hang him” or at least not in those words. Actually, after meeting with a “newly formed group of national security advisers” Obama…

acknowledged that bin Laden might not be taken alive, but suggested that if he is, the Nazi war crime trials at Nuremberg after World War II would be a good model.

This because, in his own words,

I think what would be important would be for us to do it in a way that allows the entire world to understand the murderous acts that he’s engaged in and not to make him into a martyr.

Not make him a martyr, eh?

(more…)

There is little doubt that the notion most Americans have in their heads of neoconservatism has been at least temporarily skewed due to the perceived failures in Iraq. Regardless of the fact that things are actually improving on the ground finally, the bad taste left in many proverbial mouths when uttering the term “neocon” is more than apparent.

Of course, the fact is what the vast majority of people associate with neoconservatism is, in fact, a complete misconception of what it actually means to be a neoconservative. Even Kristol’s article may be only one aspect, one perspective on what it means to be a neocon. Indeed, a whole new generation of neoconservative thinkers is sprouting up, both here in the US and overseas.  Why?  Irving Kristol says it well,

(more…)

The Jerusalem Post has revealed that Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz, quoting Israeli intelligence, has stated that Iran could go nuclear within a year, bringing much of the world’s concerns over confrontation with Tehran into a very real possibility.  Critics will argue that Iran is only after peaceful nuclear technology, but I find it hard to believe that any country as hostile and arrogant as Iran could truly desire nuclear technology for any reason other than its military might.

After all, Iran has long-range missiles capable of striking not just Israel, but also Western Europe.  This may not be an eye-opener to the European states, though I hope that our ally Britain will at least take a hard line with the Iranians.  If the British would listen to their true leaders, perhaps they could emerge from the chains of the EU and Islamism that have been dragging them down lately.  A tip of the hat to Douglas Murray who I believe has the answers to many of Britain’s current woes.

In any case–Iran is poised on the verge of a real showdown with Israel and the West.  Nuclear weaponry would be a disaster in the hands of the mullahs and lunatic fringe that calls itself the Iranian government.  Once upon a time, Iran could have become a modern, peaceful state, but under this regime I am afraid this will never be the case.

In related news, Financial Times reports that European companies are attempting to broker a gas deal with Tehran, despite US led sanctions against Iran.  Once again, our allies across the pond are doing little to actually move the peace process forward, instead doing all they can to enable Iran to get away with its rogue activities.  Regardless of their intentions, the short-sightedness is repulsive.

India may be pursuing energy deals with Iran, including plans to run a pipeline from Iran, through Pakistan, and over to India–though the relationship between the two states is uneasy at best, regardless of the recent diplomatic mission to India by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.   The Wall Street Journal writes:

India and Iran have also encountered new areas of contention. In the past two years, India has voted twice against Iran’s nuclear program at the International Atomic Energy Agency, where members have accused Iran of violating international obligations.

But India’s ties with the Americans have turned testy at times over Iran. Last week, a U.S. State Department spokesman urged the Indian government to use its leverage with Tehran to persuade it to suspend its suspected nuclear-weapons program and to stop supporting terrorist organizations believed to be active in Iraq.

India brushed off U.S. concerns. India’s Ministry of External Affairs said in a statement that the government was able to manage ties with Iran on its own.

Whether India would change course if Iran were to gain access to nuclear power is another question.  Certainly another Islamic State with the bomb would be unwelcome news to the Indians.

So what should the American response to a nuclear Iran be?  This is a difficult question, especially as we are quite effectively mired down in Iraq at present.  Nevertheless, can we avoid war, put it off a while until we finish our business in Iraq?  Is war something that we can file away for a later date?

William Kristol writes:

Great powers don’t get to avoid their urgent responsibilities because they’d prefer to deal with only one problem at a time, or to slough those responsibilities off onto others.

To be sure, we must keep diplomacy’s wheels turning with Iran–but we must also keep the very real threat of military action on the table, or else what good will diplomacy do?  The diplomacy of Chamberlain only leads to appeasement and defeat.  A nuclear Iran would truly be a defeat for the west–for civilization as a whole–and for our security and that of our allies.  This is not an exaggeration of the facts.

A nuclear Iran would cripple any attempts to bring modernity and peace to the region.  Not only could this situation lead to nuclear proliferation to other hostile states, it would lead to the very real risk of terrorist organizations gaining access to nuclear technology and weaponry.  Such proliferation, as well as the increased power of the extremist regime in Iran, would make it all that much harder for the region to evolve.  Peace would be just that much more intangible.

Steps must be taken to ensure that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons.  Israel and the US must offer up real threats and consequences should Iran move any further in this direction.  China and Russia must be pressured forcefully to abandon their support of Tehran.  Their influence in this crisis has been one of the many obstacles in the moves toward peace and security.  Their obdurate stances, due to their very lucrative contracts with Iran as well as their desire for chaos in the region, could very well lead to a bubbling over of hostilities.  As in Darfur, China could have true influence in this matter, but chooses not to because of its own interests.  Russia is equally guilty of placing its interests over the interests of the world at large.

Now, as a second American Aircraft Carrier paddles its way into the Gulf, war seems ever more likely.  Iran can deter this fiasco, should it decide to abandon its policy of hubris and accept that it can and should live at peace with its neighbors, the West, and Israel.  Once upon a time, Iran was poised to become a peaceful, prosperous center of civilization in the Middle East.

It could achieve this again, should it chose peace over war.  Persia could reemerge, economically strong and free.  Or it could descend, further into darkness.

I must confess: I was completely against the War in Iraq from the beginning. It felt so…reckless. Right off the bat, I had the ominous sense that things hadn’t been thought through. Unfortunately, I was right.  My neocon brethren had rushed too quickly, or perhaps there were too many differing views on how the War should be carried out, or….

Maybe Rumsfeld’s vision of a New American Military was too ambitious or naive or visionary…I’m not sure. I wasn’t there. All I know, is that I felt we should have handled Hussein similarly to how the Israelis did in 1981. “Walk softly and carry a big stick” is how Teddy Roosevelt put it. Well it’s too late for the “walk softly” part. So what about that stick?

We diverted massive resources away from graver threats, such as Iran and Syria, and North Korea. Oh, and Afghanistan, while not really a threat anymore, was and still is unfinished business.  So entering Iraq was not really defensible, even if the blame for that can’t be laid solely at the feet of the Administration–many a Democrat participated in the march to war.   Invading Iraq wasn’t in our best interest at the time.

It wasn’t in our best interest and it certainly wasn’t in the best interest of Israel, either.  Many critics of the so-called “Israel Lobby” claim America always acts in the best interests of Israel, or that Iraq was somehow a war for Israel, but that is purely absurd as can be seen here and here.  Besides, it’s not hard to see that an unstable region is bad for Israel.  A weak Saddam is better than a strengthened Iran.  America often does work to benefit Israel, which makes sense.  We have common allies and common foes.  Many Americans are also Israeli citizens.  We share commerce, technology, and have an intelligence relationship rivaled only by the one we share with the United Kingdom.

Well What About Now?

Now that we’re in Iraq we need to decide how to get out of Iraq. Nobody wants to be there anymore, least of all the soldiers who have to risk their necks every day to try to make the world safer. There are many schools of thought on this subject, but the two most popular are:

1. Begin withdrawing troops and funds immediately. The only way the Iraqis will ever solve their problems is if we let them hash it out. Like a crowd letting a fight continue with breaking it up. “Eventually they’ll tire out, you’ll see.” Eventually….

or,

2. Continue the “surge” and maintain troop levels and funds until the job is done. Nobody is quite in agreement on what “the job” is that needs to get done, but several things are agreed upon:

• The Iraqis need a stable political system and a government than can actually operate on its own. To get here, they obviously need a stable and secure enough country in which to operate said government.
• A solution to the Civil War has to be political, and this will be heavily influenced by economic factors such as the division of oil profits; the autonomy of the Kurds; and the under-representation of the once politically dominant Sunni Muslims.
• No political aims will ever be achieved in a state of chaos, which is likely if too many American troops are withdrawn before Iraqi security forces can take over.
• That’s going to take time and money, and its going to take its tole in lives as well.

What’s the result of our early withdrawal?   Will the Iraqi people simply duke it out–and when the punches stop, and the dust settles, will they help each other up like two spent boxers and shake hands?

Doubtful.

The only reason there wasn’t Civil War under Saddam was that he provided security and stability. Of course, he did so with brutal and inhumane tactics, but nevertheless, the various groups were able to live together relatively peacefully. I think what most Iraqi’s want is running water, roofs over their heads, a steady paycheck, and no lines at the gas pump. It is the minority that wants death, suicide bombings, and constant chaos.

The problem with Option #1–our early withdrawal–is that I don’t think it will give the moderate majority time to do what they need to do - cast out the radicals and retake the country.  A moderate majority is easily cowed by a radical minority–especially one so well armed and well-funded by hostile Iranian and Syrian interests. So the only option to create a political solution in which the moderates win and the radicals lose, is to stay and provide the necessary peace-keeping and security that only American troops can provide, at least until Iraqi troops can take over.

Too bad NATO and the UN decided not to help. More peace-keeping forces are needed until the Iraqis can take the reigns. Until such time, though, we need to “stay the course” because it’s the only humane thing to do, now that we’re here. I wish we’d been wiser in the beginning, but at least we can be wise, and humane, now.