Tom,
I put Arnaud De Borchgrave in the same category as Robert Novak and Pat Buchanan. As I remember it, De Borchgrave, Buchanan and Novak were on the right side of most of the issues regarding America's national security strategy during the Cold War.
For some reason, however, they don't have the same enthusiasm for fighting Islamist fascism that they had for fighting communism.
Why is this? De Borchgrave, Buchanan and Novak have all hinted that the war on terror has more to do with protecting Israel than protecting American interests, with Buchanan being the most outspoken. Years ago William F. Buckley concluded that Pat Buchanan's rhetoric during the 1991 Gulf war was anti-Semetic.
And one more thing.
There are some dangers in seeing the world in a "black and white," "good versus evil" perspective. But there are also dangers in adopting an attitude of extreme moral relativism.
I think President Bush is correct to understand that liberal democracy is the only truly legitimate form of political organization. But his willingness to maintain cooperation with Pakistan's dictatorship shows that he has a pragmatic side.
I don't believe either his right-wing or left-wing critics possess those same qualities. They seem to lack a belief that liberal democracies have a right to defend themselves against fascist dictatorships like Saddam's Iraq and the current one in Iran.
Excellent post Tom. The left has grown weary of the fight necessary to maintain democracies and therefor permits regimes such as the Mullahs to exist, trade and prosper. And De Borchgrave, like some others on the right, appear weary of the work required to resist those nations in an effort to avoid war. Just war is a last resort, and when the only alternative is to wait to be attacked to bear our the real danger then it is time to act. We have time with Iran (and elsewhere) but it is limited and must be used judiciously.
Oh how I dislike nuancists, fence sitters, and eggshell walkers. If it weren’t for the United States absorbing most of their passionate misguided indignation they’d be nothing more than cattle awaiting their slaughter.
Note to readers: Tom does an outstanding flip-side tandem analysis with a VDH article. The Redhunter and Hanson, both contribute some very interesting facts and perspectives of WWII and the “Impatient Caucus”.
BTW-Kat, your a great addition to the pups! I like your style.
Thanks Larry,
What I see is that we will do many of the same things that we did in the First Half of the Cold War.
Some folks refer to this as World War IV. If you really must know, I think this is an extension of the Cold War. Frankly, I see this as mop up efforts with the potential of china being the next place that we need to worry about. I don't think they are the Apex, but we can't take our eyes from them and they are the extension of the cold war, so are the Islamists who are the generation of years of cold war maneuvering.
You see, security isn't just whether Saddam had WMD and could use them against us or our interest. It wasn't just whether he would give them to terrorists. It wasn't just that democracy is a nice anti-dote to totalitarianism.
This is the mop up of the cold war, just another phase. You see, as long as their are totalitarian regimes, there will always be countries that seek influence over these countries through military sales of equipment, back door deals for public resources that effectively kill the economy and leave these countries vulnerable to influence either way.
The same way in which france, Germany and Britain tried to out pace the Russians in their attempts at influence on Iran. Russia still wants in the game too but only has military tech and economic support to peddle. Same with France. But also China. Russia has their own security reasons for making their deal. I think it's a bit of a bribe in hopes that they will stem assistance to their chechyn Islamist rebels as well as sowing up the Caspian area countries for oil control.
china is a growing economic power house but is heavily leveraged with their reliance on mid east oil. They are inherently expansionist and, if we allowed them to continue, they would replace the Soviets as the rival power in the ME for influence peddling, thus kicking off the second stage of the original cold war.
.
There are so many levels of this game. it isn't really black and white. But what totally amazes me is some "sophisticated" folks inability to understand that there are multiple strategies at work.
I dismiss the "blood for oil" because it's not about that. It is and it isn't. If free countries do not control their oil and government then they are open to influence. If countries like China are able to inact influence over these areas then we will be in an earnest and direct conflict with them, whether that is the containment cold war policy (which we are practicing now by setting free democracies out in the ME and limiting their influence) or physical conflict is to be decided.
Really, the rest of these people are bit players on the world stage. Like the goofy night watchman in "Much ado about nothing" or the pissy half brother of the same. All they do is make it a farce and a pain.
This is in truth one of the best planned pre-emptive wars in history. You are looking at the pre-emption of the next level of cold war. or, you are looking at battle number 63 of the old cold war where we are finishing mopping up the crappy remnents from a crappy century long crappy ideology.
Chew on that a little
The other issue is that Patti-cake Buchanan and those of his ilk are tired cold warriors. They wanted the end of the USSR to be the end of the cold war so they could take off their armor and just be conservatives again.
That's okay. It's time for the new cold warriors.
The problem is, nobody wants to call it like that. Nobody wants to see that day return when it is brinkmanship and they believe they can stop it. It can't stop as long as those that would go toe to toe with us just to become the next USSR exist and have the ability to step up.
This is us taking the rug out from under them.
Even France. Why do you think they back the Arabs and Islamists and totalitarians? It's not just about resources, this is power brokering. They are the ultimate pragmatists left over from the cold war. They'd just as soon keep fomenting sectarian violence if it allowed them to use it as their stepping stone to the pedestal of supremacy left from the USSR.
You see that we are shitting all over their ability to step into that role every time another government goes democracy.
In short, we are in the sprint phase of the Marathon. If we don't win, the entire marathon race begins again.
I keep hearing that Iran's regime is going to be toppled by their own people, that there's going to be a revolution. But I've been hearing this for over a year. So, I wonder if President Bush should ask Congress for a war resolution against Iran too. I realize that Congress would be reluctant to give Bush the votes to do this. But if we don't use military force, are we just accepting a nuclear powered totalitiarian Iran? Or can our CIA assist the pro-democracy movement in Iran and topple the current regime in Iran without any direct American military involvement? Or are President Bush's stirring speechs enough (his second inaugural and state of the union)?
Excellent comments all. But of course.
Mark, you make a great point in that if we continue our present course we will soon face a nuclear-armed Iran. Negotiations and sanctions will not work. At best they may delay Iran.
The best think to happen would be for their to be a "spark" of the sort that overthrew Nicolae Ceausescu
...in Romania. If, when this occurs, we have agents already in place ready to aid the democrats, a revolt may be successful. But as you say it requires successful CIA penetration.
There really are no good answers. Their nuclear facilities are spread out, and it's hard for us to have really good knowledge of were the vitals all are. So if we bomb and don't get everything, which is a real possibility, then we're faced with very serious retaliation.
On the other hand, if we do nothing, Iran will inevitably get the bomb. Then we can't attack. We're stuck again. And even worse they may just up and nuke Israel (as some mullahs have said they would). Sure, this may not be the "rational" thing to do, as it would leave them open to terrible retaliation, but it is always a mistake to believe that your enemies will act using your definition of what is rational.
There are just no good options.
Buchanan is someone else for whom I've totally lost patience. Novak too. They fall under the "paleo-conservative" label, a group I once flirted with during the Cold War but am now fairly disgusted with.
The funny thing is that those who acuse the Bush Administration (and people like us) of seeing the world in terms of black and white do just that themselves. kat is dead-on right. Bush et al are the sophisticated ones.
Interesting observation that we are in the "mop up" stages of the Cold War. I hadn't thought of it that way but you're right.
I don't think a nuclear Iran precludes the over throw of their current government. don't forget that the Russian's did just that. The lichtensteiners, the Poles, nuclear weapons do not keep the populace from acting against the government. It just keeps outside entities from overtly participating.
From what I understand, the disidents don't want an Iraqi style "saving". However, I am at a complete loss what they do want when they say, "We want American help, we don't want American bombs" or something like that.
Basically, what they want is our words and out money.
they fear sanctions as well.
I hear the Iranian disidents calling for overthrowing the government peacefully. Maybe like the Russian people all amassing together to march on the capital.
Again, there is some problem with their call and why i believe that we are in for a very long stand off with Iran.
World opinion has influenced us not to go another step. We're taking military power off the table so the EU can negotiate and because some disidents from Iran believe that it stirs up nationalistic tendencies that would secure the mullah's position.
In which case, I don't think Iran is ready to be free.
The difference of course, between Iran and the fall of communist russia (or at least it's stumble into soft autocracy), is that the Iranian military and police still participate in killing, jailing, beating the disidents. The Russian's only succeeded because the military joined the people.
Iran is not in that position. There are really not enough people in Iran interested in their freedom. I think we are betting on a few thousand (even a few hundred thousand) out of a tens of millions.
In which case, I believe it is foolish to take military power off the table. As much as I'd like a free and willing iranian populace to take over their government, I don't think we have the time to wait. Partly because they will have nukes and partly because I don't really want the cold war to become the cold war of the 60's again complete with nuclear brinkmanship.
The point of these operations is to stop that possibility and close up the loose ends. In which case, if the disidents don't get something moving soon, I'd say, "to bad you took to long" and go to town on the entire country. they want it after wards, they can have it.
This is about our security, not wishful thinking of happy endings.
I think Iran is a much bigger problem than most people imagine even beyond nuclear capabilities. However, I don’t think a war resolution, at this time, would ever fly. The military willingness of our current allies continues to diminish while our forces are stretched and worked to near capacity. Sanctions? Nah.
I think actus is correct. The real reformers are in huge numbers.
Reza Pahvlah offers this scenario: “I'm here to tell you that today we have a very important development in Iran. There's a call for a national referendum, where the Iranian people demand the right to go to the polls and elect what they want for themselves in the future. Pressure can be brought onto the regime both domestically, as well as the support of the international community, by lending a hand to the democratic forces, by standing with them, by sending them a clear message that we are not standing against them and cutting a deal over your head with the mullahs………….(cont.)
…………(cont.)…”And as far as this country is concerned, I think the message from this administration has been very clear. What's left to be seen is what Europe is going to do. And as you know, Europe is engaging in trade talk with Iranians, even though the issue of nuclear weapons has been one of the major setbacks. What we would like to see happen is to add to the caveat and demand further issues that relates to human rights. I think when the regime realizes that the world is not going to stand idle and is not going to take no for an answer, it can only invigorate and hearten the people of Iran, who don't need anything other than moral support to achieve that goal.
“…until now, the Iranians have received so many mixed signals from the outside world, not knowing if the world is committed [to regime change].” Read full interview here.
I tend to agree with you Tom and that's not because I want to flatter you. De Borchgrave should know better about appeasement. After all, he's of European (Belgian!) descent and has the right age to know full well about Chamberlain.
Like Mark I think you can put him in the same catogory as Novak. I know about Buchanan, but I'm not sure if intellectually this last one measures up to the other two.
But people: a plus for De Borchgraeve is that he points to the Saudi-backed Hate Ideology in US mosques.
Sheesh people, if Europe is going down it may have one merit: offering the US a prime example of how NOT to accommodate immigrants. Watch Europe closely and adapt your policies in time.
Michael,
De Borchgraeve is correct to point out that Saudi Arabia's oil revenue is being invested in radical Wahabbi mosques in the United States.
But that's where I think De Borchgraeve believes the problem can be solved: tightening up our immigration policies.
Now, I am putting words in his mouth here. But Pat Buchanan has been an opponent of immigration for years (Mexican immigration, primarily).
I have no problem with adjusting our immigration policies to meet our current security needs in regards to the terrorist threat. But, in my humble opinion, there has to be more to the strategy of winning the war on terror than simply hunkering down and trying to prevent terrorists from getting in. That's where Bush's forward strategy of freedom comes in.
Mark Steyn writes:
.....what exactly does this new Euro-American "cooperation" boil down to when the airy platitudes float gently back to earth? It means that the US expends huge amounts of diplomatic effort and, after a year or three, the French graciously agree to train a couple of dozen Iraqi policemen.
Not in Iraq, of course – that would be too close cooperation – but in France. So, in the détente phase of the new Cold War, the Iraqi police recruits permitted to set foot in the Fifth Republic are the equivalent of a 1970s ballet-company cultural exchange.
But, in my humble opinion, there has to be more to the strategy of winning the war on terror than simply hunkering down and trying to prevent terrorists from getting in. That's where Bush's forward strategy of freedom comes in.
Yes Mark, of course. I do not agree with ADB's soft stance, I only wanted to give him credit where credit is due.
I do not agree with ADB's soft stance, I only wanted to give him credit where credit is due.
Michael, I knew that. You have been a consistent supporter of Bush's "forward strategy of freedom."
But a friend of mine told me that if we stopped allowing immigrants to come into America, there would be no terrorist problem. I tend to doubt that myself.
Trolls
Management has deleted your comments. Do not ask for an explanation, as we are under no obligation to provide you one. If you cannot figure out what constitutes an acceptable comment, that is your problem, for everyone else here can.
Thank-You-for-Your-Attention-That-Is-All
Mark
yes, I too wonder about the "terrorists are coming as immigrants" argument. I think it's usually used as an excuse to seal the southern border, which is not really where the terrorists are coming from.
A real problem is in Saudi funded "schools" here in the states. I did a post on my other site about this a week or so ago. Scary stuff. Their export of radical Wahabbist stuff must be stopped period.
It is possible that we need to stop pussy footing around about this literature as "free speech" and start prosecuting these people under the same laws that we used to decimate the KKK and other racist entities (if we aren't already).
Then they can join the rest of their brethern on the line of marginalized idiots to be for ever monitored.
I did visit an excellent site Free Muslims against Terrorism. No excuses there although they do defend their religion, they don't claim that Muslims are not terrorists and they do claim that it is Muslims that must speak against it. Check LGF yesterday for details.
I think it is also right that we should not expect MAD to be the one deterrent. We should also recognize that there are probably both entities at work inside both of these groups: the nihilist "so what if you kill me, at least I killed you" and the MAD crew.
Possible even within NK those that actively work against the state to insure that the project is at least slowed down and highly disfunctional. I'd say that's why they don't have a good product today. It may be from purposeful "stupidity" as some tried to do in Iraq.
Commenting by HaloScan
