[RESPONSE to WSJ] Fear and False Choices: More Right Wing Deathmongering from Podhoretz.
Wed May 30, 2007 at 11:02:09 AM PDT
Mr. Podhoretz’s op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal is a harrowing glimpse into the false logic and backwards-compatible rationale that first got us into Iraq and is now rushing us pell-mell into Iran. For the neocons everything must be framed in terms of war, fear and a life or death struggle that we are about to lose if we do not follow their advice. No objective can be pursued as a general interest, a mutual good, or in the hopes of a rational outcome. Diplomacy and peace or relics of an age gone by. Everything is now about threat assessment, false courage, and the need to define that which you oppose as an "evil" which must be destroyed; and destroyed not in a metaphorical sense, but literally and physically bombed, shot, and killed.
Mr. Podhoretz tries ever-so-hard to equate this new perceived threat to the great threats we faced from Hitler and the USSR, yet conveniently ignoring facts like that the entire world joined us in fighting Nazism or that our decades long opposition to Soviet Communism was painstakingly done in an effort to avoid open conflict, mass casualties or uncontrollable escalation. It was a strategy of containment, diplomatic maneuvering, and military deterrence. History has come to hold both of these events as two of the greatest victories in the history of the world, but rather then learn from them, Mr. Podhoretz seeks only to borrow their glory and siphon their nobility with cheap analogies and pale lip-service. However, not even the mantle of the "Greatest Generation" nor the recycled fear of Mutual Assured Destruction can cover these failed policies or mask the Vietnamesque stink coming off of their results.
It is no surprise then that he begins his house of cards argument by first deftly renaming the Cold War and calling it World War III, lest people remember the very reason it was called "cold" in the first place. From there it’s a simple ideological leap to call this new conflict World War IV and in the single blink of a neocon’s reptilian eye this whole foreign policy catastrophe is now heroically rebranded as the grandchild of that great global struggle of Western Democracy vs. Totalitarian Nazism. All you need at that point are some pot shots at diplomacy, disgraceful attempts to raise the spectre of the Holocaust, a dig at Neville Chamberlain for good measure, some backhanded insults at effete Europeans and their ilk, and if you can work some snide derision at "appeasement" so much the better. But wait... I’m getting ahead of myself.
The basic tenet of Mr. Podhoretz entire argument is that once Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it will be impossible to stop them from doing anything they want as they spread an Iranian Dominated Regime, first throughout the Middle East and then throughout Europe which will come to be known as "Eurabia" once it is firmly under the heel of the Ayatollah.
He backs up this doom and gloom scenario with paper-thin evidence about how this can not be avoided by pointing out a few key observations. The first is that Great Britain didn’t immediately attack Iran when 15 British sailors were taken hostage. Then there is the fact that Iran can not be swayed through deterrence because of Ahmadinejad’s apocalyptic mindset and the fact that Muslims place their allegiance to Allah over any ties or patriotism or nationalism. Third is the a priori assertion that diplomacy and sanctions are nothing but efforts to "give futility its chance". These are all prismed through very selectively cherry-picked analogies to Hitler, the USSR and founded on the already accepted premise that pre-emptive war is A-OK.
First, his blatant disregard for England and anything else European. Iran took 16 sailors captive off the its coast in waters they claimed to be Iranian and we claimed to be Iraqi. They then notified Britain and held these prisoners while Iranian and British officials worked out the terms of release. The end result was that all 16 were released unharmed and no further military conflict was initiated or escalated over the event. Mr Podhoretz describes this as "a show of impotence" and "humiliating" and derides their decision to use "soft power so beloved of sophisticated Europeans and their American fellow travelers". So not only are the Europeans weak and soft and humiliatingly impotent but so are Americans that travel to Europe? Leaving that aside, Mr. Podhoretz clearly would have been more impressed with an instant retaliation or at least a threat to do so if they were not released because that’s what a real power (presumably like America) would have the courage to do.
Perhaps Mr. Podhoretz was equally humiliated by George Bush when the US negotiated the release of 24 American airmen that were held as a result of a down intelligence plane near Hainan, China. Bush secured their release with an apology for the breach of Chinese airspace, an expressed appreciation for "China’s efforts to see to the well-being of our crew" and agreeing to meet to discuss China’s concerns about American surveillance. So instead of a diplomatic success of getting 24 American citizens home safely and averting any kind of ramped hostilities with another country, this is a disgusting capitulation when we should have "immediately retaliated against this blatant act of aggression". I won’t even try to imagine the debilitating shame he must have felt when Iran held over 50 Americans hostage for 444 days back in 1979. Clearly we should have promptly invaded their country at such an outrage and diplomacy be damned.
This seems a bit of reckless saber-rattling by someone who has never even held a saber. In the middle of a massive conflict in Iraq that is spiraling out of control, rising sentiments against the West, and constant worry that the Iraq War will spill over into a regional conflict, why in the world would you want Britain to suddenly pounce in and attack another country over 16 individuals that were not being harmed when Iran initiated diplomatic talks themselves?!? Sure Ahmadinejad played up the whole benefactor thing about how gracious he was to release them but we knew he’d do that as nothing more then political theater. The fact is that 16 Brits came home safely and Iran is still officially on the sideline while the Iraq war continues. Diplomacy has a purpose and this is a clear example of it.
Nonetheless, this is used to put forth this complete stretch to absurdity:
If, then under present circumstances Ahmadinejad could bring about the extraordinary degree of kowtowing that resulted from the kidnapping of the British sailors, what might he not accomplish with a nuclear arsenal behind him--nuclear bombs that could be fitted on missiles capable of reaching Europe?
Which assumes that the world’s response to a media-focused publicly announced event involving 16 unharmed soldiers in the middle of an on-going conflict would be the same we would have to a nation threatening nuclear annihilation of an entire country or continent.
The last nation we faced that threatened any kind of nuclear attack was the USSR. I don’t seem to recall any kind of backing down in the face of that. I seem to remember us winning the Cold War. Sorry... I mean World War III.
Winning the cold war without a single direct engagement and not having even one nuclear weapon fired on either side must be too old-fashioned for Mr. Podhoretz. Deterrence is clearly part of that Pre-9/11 World we hear derided so often.
Aside from the fact that the only "experts" quoted in this article are John Bolton and Bernard Lewis, both affirmed supporters of the Iraqi War (which has turned out just oh so well and right on point as predicted), and Robert Joseph, who as part of the National Institute for Public Policy advocates using tactical nuclear weapons as part of the standard US Arsenal, the logic used doesn’t hold up when it is consistent, which is fine I guess because consistent logic doesn’t make much of a showing in Mr. Podhoretz’s argument.
For one, in an attempt to back up his claims about the fanaticism we face, he makes drags out an old quote from Khomeini about how they "Do not worhip Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land burn."
But then eight paragraphs later (in true accordance with Godwin’s Law) compares Ahmadinejad to Hitler as being:
"arevolutionary whose objective is to overturn the going international system and to replace it in the fullness of time with a new order dominated by Iran".
Or later in the article when he gallantly admits to the possibility that in the face of a US attack "all Iranians, even the democratic dissidents, would be impelled to rally around the flag." But yet they have so little regard for nationalism that the idea that a retaliation for any nuclear aggression would be the complete and utter destruction of Iran would have no effect?
He also talks about how their religious views are so radically fundamental that they have no fear of death and will gladly die in the name of Islam since fighting the infidel guarantees their place in heaven. I believe that was the same logic about the irrepressible morale we would face in the Gulf War when we went in to liberate Kuwait. Thousands of Iraqi soldiers oh-so-eager to die for their God that we would never get them to give up their fight. So says the fanatics, but what did we see when we got there? Regular soldiers not 100% in love with the idea of facing the US Military for someone else’s political gain and so anxious to get out of it alive that they were surrendering to CNN crews.
This is simply an attempt to play up the Iranians as rabid fanatics waiting for any chance to die for their cause. They can not be reasoned with. They can not be spoken to. They can only be fought. This isn’t reason; this is demonization. I’m sure there are many Islamic Fundamentalists that feel that way. but I’m not so sure there aren’t Christian Fundamentalists in America that don’t reciprocate it. But there are also many Iranian civilians who do not want war. Who have no more desire to kill anyone, American or other wise, then they do to be killed themselves, by Americans or otherwise. And I suspect that there is also a sizeable portion of the population that doesn’t feel that strongly one way or the other but as soon as bombs start falling on their cities or tanks roll into Tehran will start siding a whole lot with the former then they do with the latter.
Lastly, and most profusely, Mr. Podhoretz, spends most of his article condemning diplomacy. He equates it to appeasement. He calls it futile. In Podhoretz’s world, sanctions are useless and never work (except in Libya) and every nuclear threat must be faced with immediate military action (except South Korea) and nonmilitary instruments of power are only good to "exert pressure for reform on countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia" (which are our allies last time I checked). The idea of allowing their own internal factions to bring about a regime change is also discarded as he has lost face that it hasn’t happened in 3½ whole years. (because the revolution from theocracy to Jeffersonian Democracy should only take a few years especially if you speed it up with military force.. just look how far and how fast Iraq has come.)
Allow me to dispense with the item by item refutation and get to my main point. This whole mindset is based on one premise, and lest I be accused of straw manning their well-founded argument, I’ll allow Mr. Podhoretz to explain it himself.
"What follows from this way of looking at the last five years is that the military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq cannot be understood if they are regarded as self-contained wars in their own right. Instead we have to see them as fronts or theaters that have been opened up in the early stages of a protracted global struggle."
But the flaw with this argument is its open-endedness. Anything that happens anywhere in the world is now part of this global struggle. Were the riots in France part of Ahmandinejad’s mad scheming to rule the world? Is Chavez yet another "mutation of the totalitarian disease"? Nothing can ever be a mistake or error when everything is part of this "global struggle". But the truth is that Iraq is not a front or theatre against terrorism. It was a misguided side trek that has taken us away from our goal. It has made us less safe. It has emboldened our enemy and is bankrupting us. We could have fought Al Qaida and Bin Laden without ever stepping foot in Iraq.
And the frightening part of this neocon belief, as even Mr. Podhoretz admits, is that they realize that a possible outcome would be a "world outcry against the inevitable civilian casualties [that] would make the anti-Americanism of today look like a lovefest." Yes, Mr. Podhoretz you are right. That will happen and in part is already happening today. And what do you think the response will be? A formal letter of protest? A sharply worded column in an Iranian newspaper? No. It will be more attacks and more radical militants like Ahmadinejad will ride that Anti-Americanism to power. This will in turn require further military action from us as we drift further and further away from our allies. The same allies I would point out that you abrasively refer to as weak and effete and soft and lacking courage and foolishly dedicated to diplomacy and appeasement.
Thus the self-sustaining cycle of constant and global war against the ephemeral noun of Terrorism will continue through what you will probably come to refer to as World War Five, and Six, and Seven, and Twelve and Fifteen and so on and so on.
Which I’m not so sure isn’t your real goal after all.....
Permalink | 11 comments