The Washington Post has declined precipitously since I was a young man and the late Ben Bradlee was a crusading editor. Now, its pages are besmirched by the likes of Jennifer Rubin, whose Obama Derangement Syndrome coupled with fanatical devotion to Zionist supremacy have made her a laughing stock; Charles, Hammer of Cabbages, whose reputation as an 'intellectual' is torpedoed every time he opens his mouth and Michael Gerson, a Bush-ite warmonger, whose apologia (thinly disguised as critique) for the odious Tom Cotton the other day plumbed new depths of shifty, disingenuous rationalization.
And now, a new moon has appeared in the Post's lunatic firmament: Joshua Muravchik...and brother, he is a piece of work.
Muravchik is a 'type' that we're all too familiar with: the young Leftist who decays, with age, into the Right Wing hack. An enthusiastic supporter of the criminal stupidity of the Iraq War and a cheerleader for the Bush Follies, Muravchik, deluded as ever, has decided that what is lacking in public discourse in the United States is the deranged warmongering of a simpleton. His latest column in The Washington Post addresses that perceived lack.
In a quick nutcase...erm, I mean 'nutshell', Muravchik's thesis (if such sophomoric drivel can be so dignified) is that nothing will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and the United States should start bombing them now.
Does this mean that our only option is war? Yes, although an air campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would entail less need for boots on the ground than the war Obama is waging against the Islamic State, which poses far smaller a threat than Iran does.
Typical of the armchair warrior and chicken-hawk (cf. William 'Wrong' Kristol, Muravchik's colleague at
The Weekly Standard, natch), Muravchik is prepared to sacrifice
other people's sons and daughters and fight to the last drop of someone
else's blood in the cause of his crackpot Manichean world-view.
Wouldn’t destroying much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure merely delay its progress? Perhaps, but we can strike as often as necessary. Of course, Iran would try to conceal and defend the elements of its nuclear program, so we might have to find new ways to discover and attack them.
'...we might have to...'; 'we'? By 'we', of course, Muravchik means 'someone else' and by 'might', he means 'will'.
Nonetheless, we might absorb some strikes.
Again, with the 'we'? Muravchik is a 'profile in courage' to set along side Mitt 'War Horse' Romney. Romney marched in support of the Vietnam War and then ran away to France, rather than actually
serve in that war.
Muravchik is prepared to see other people 'absorb some strikes'. His resolve is unwavering...it usually is in people who wage war from the comfort of their home, while wearing carpet-slippers. The thought of Muravchik's sacrifice makes me choke-up; remind me to thank him for his service. {diarist pauses to vomit in mouth a little}
And finally, wouldn’t Iran retaliate by using its own forces or proxies to attack Americans — as it has done in Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia — with new ferocity? Probably. We could attempt to deter this by warning that we would respond by targeting other military and infrastructure facilities.
'We could attempt...'; honestly, this guy is a sketch. And if the 'attempt' fails? Then what? Nuke Iran? Does this putz not think that Russia, China and Pakistan (all nuclear powers and neighbors of Iran) might have something to say to that?
Frankly, Muravchik's column is so ugly and deranged, so cretinously unrealistic, so redolent of late nights and large bar-tabs, that I have to assume it's 'clickbait'.
Then again, when crackpots like Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz et al are taken seriously, perhaps not...in which case I'm terrified for my country and the world.