Send in the Clowns
In a post discussing how American neo-conservatives have responded to the escalating conflict in Lebanon, the always astute Digby writes:
But how naive can a person be? Militants, sadly, are a highly renewable resource. If you kill the "few thousand Hezbollah fighters," a few thousand more will quickly take their place. That's especially true if, in killing that first wave of fighters, you further radicalize the surrounding population, which is already incredibly sympathetic to their cause. Does Blankley realize that Hezbollah overwhelming won the recent parliamentary elections in Southern Lebanon? Does he realize that if you frame this battle as a "clash of civilizations," the many millions of Muslims in the world are likely to become more, not less, alienated from and hostile to Western interests?
American foreign policy is supposed to be about speaking softly and carrying a big stick. But as Digby writes:
Our foreign policy for the last five years has been characterized not by soft-spoken diplomacy, but by reckless trash talking that we haven't been able to back up. But conservative pundits are undeterred. They respond to setbacks by continually upping the ante, by becoming more bellicose and irrational. It is long past time to stop taking these clowns seriously.
As if on cue, Tony Blankley steps up to the plate with a column that perfectly captures what Digby is describing:I have said it before many times and I'll say it again:
the neocons have always been wrong about everything. This is
just the latest in a decades long series of delusional
miscalculations in which it is fantasized that if only the US
would just get tough everything would fall into place. This is
the simple essence of everything they believe in. . . .I confess that I'm still shocked by that myself, although less
so each time we are confronted with a challenge and these
neocon magical thinkers automatically default to bellicose
trash talk they are unable to back up.
President Bush has failed in five years to successfully make theStop for a moment and try to appreciate just how totally insane that paragraph is. Blankley believes that the problem of Islamic extremism can be solved if we just amass an army of sufficient size and physically "smash" the enemy into submission. Notice, in particular, his reference to "a few thousand Hezbollah fighters." Blankley clearly believes that if we just identify and eliminate the current crop of "bad guys," the problem magically goes away.
case either to America or to the Western world that we are, in
fact, in a mortal, worldwide struggle, what my old boss Newt
Gingrich recently called World War III; what I called "The West's
Last Chance" in my book last year; and what I and many others
have called the clash of civilizations.
Only when that case has been made persuasively will the real
struggle for victory begin. Only then will Europe raise armies to
fight -- not for Israel or the United States -- but for their own
survival.
And we are not without resources. Europe -- from Poland to
the Atlantic, from Sweden to Greece -- is over 700 million
strong. Hindu India is over a billion. North America is over 400
million. It is absurd to think that such a mass of civilization
cannot send sufficient troops to smash -- door to door and hand
to hand if necessary, and it probably will be necessary -- a few
thousand Hezbollah fighters. For that matter, a force could be
raised to clean out the tribal lands in northern Pakistan and the
Islamist/anarchic Horn of Africa and wherever radical
Islamists have cover and succor.
But how naive can a person be? Militants, sadly, are a highly renewable resource. If you kill the "few thousand Hezbollah fighters," a few thousand more will quickly take their place. That's especially true if, in killing that first wave of fighters, you further radicalize the surrounding population, which is already incredibly sympathetic to their cause. Does Blankley realize that Hezbollah overwhelming won the recent parliamentary elections in Southern Lebanon? Does he realize that if you frame this battle as a "clash of civilizations," the many millions of Muslims in the world are likely to become more, not less, alienated from and hostile to Western interests?
American foreign policy is supposed to be about speaking softly and carrying a big stick. But as Digby writes:
The neocons have destroyed America's carefully nurtured
mystique by seeking to flex its muscles for the sake of flexing
them. What a mistake. This country is much, much weaker today
because of it and the world is paying the price.
Our foreign policy for the last five years has been characterized not by soft-spoken diplomacy, but by reckless trash talking that we haven't been able to back up. But conservative pundits are undeterred. They respond to setbacks by continually upping the ante, by becoming more bellicose and irrational. It is long past time to stop taking these clowns seriously.
posted by A.L. at 11:07 PM
22 Comments:
Since when was Tony Blankley a neocon? Or Gingrich for that matter?
How do you think Hezbollah should be dealt with AI?
Send in the clowns? Don't be silly - glenn greenwald is busy with his own blog.
And digby? LOL - proclaim the neocons "always wrong" all you want - they just happen to control every level of the US Government because people like digby want to make this all about personalities and platitudes instead of the real issues.
The neocon agenda is nothing less than an economic assault on working Americans, their families, and children - it is all about the socio-economic issues and the fact that war is always an economic choice.
As if somehow this would all be OK is the neocons were somehow more "competent" or more often "right."
Do you have some favors you need to return to the faux "advertise liberally" circle of links today?
Actually, there is one thing about Tony Blankley's column that was semi-impressive for a neocon. It's the recognition that, for his plan of waging war on a whole region to be feasible, we need to get other nations on board. Normally, the neocons are calling for a more unilateral approach and even talk about Europe as part of the other side, so it's good to see one recognize that we just might need France to help us here. Not that we're likely to get too many nations to actually go along with us, but the recognition that we would need to is worth something, isn't it?
I just get so irritated by all those who offer a more troops everywhere plan, whether neocon or Lieberman dems, because they get to be taken so seriously while they urge us to choose options we don't have. Look at the neocons now attacking Bush for not making exactly the war he'd love to have but has no credible options for fighting. Now if only a few of them would start calling for a draft, then I really might start to believe they were serious and aware of the implications of what they ask for and not just looking for cheap political points. Personally, I think the begging for WWIII is lunacy, but some honesty from those agitating for this would be preferable to the current debate.
Since when was Tony Blankley a neocon? Or Gingrich for that matter?
Blankely's actually worse. He's one of those conservatives who adopted the crazy interventionalism of neocons but without the residual liberal ideolism. In other words, he's more about smashing "the enemy" than reshaping the world.
How do you think Hezbollah should be dealt with AI?
That's 64,000 dollar question, isn't it? And I don't know the answer (nor does anyone else). But I harbor no illusions that a strategy of going door-to-door and killing all Hezbullah fighters (if you can even find them) is going to solve the problem. As always with terrorist groups, a delicate balancing act is required. You have get the bad guys without doing things that are going to result in the creation of even more bad guys.
AL, I agree re: Blankley, he is more of a smashing paleocon if you will. However, I'm not convinced that the mere difficulty or seeming intractability of a problem -- like Hezbollah -- requires a delicate balancing act solution. Perhaps it requires even greater smashing than that advocated by TB. One may argue, that Israel wouldn't be in the mess it is in right now, if it had shown less restraint in the past and done more to vanquish its enemies.
One may argue, that Israel wouldn't be in the mess it is in right now, if it had shown less restraint in the past and done more to vanquish its enemies.
One could argue that, but it strikes me as implausible. Israel is in the unfortunate position where most everything it does increases the hatred of its enemies (and the populations that give those enemies aid and support). I don't see how greater brutality would help the situation.
I don't see how anyone who proclaims Christ's gospel of Love , Compassion and Forgiveness gives any support to those who carry on professing that more war, more destruction, more suffering is the way to make the world a better place. To bring on Armegeddon? To supplant the words of Jesus with the vague hallucinations of the Book Revelations is to corrupt Christianity.
I'm not a Christian but I would bet my soul, if I have one, that Christ meant it when he said, "Blessed are the peace makers." Also, "Love your enemy." And "turn the other cheek." He will not award first prize to the people whose hearts are bent on destruction--whether they are our bloviator Tony or the homocide/suicide bombers.
Thanks, it's a hot, hot day and I was in the mood to rant.
"a force could be raised to clean out the tribal lands in northern Pakistan and the Islamist/anarchic Horn of Africa and wherever radical Islamists have cover and succor."
I think you missed the key word in Blankley's piece, the word "clean." Blankley would have been right at home in Serbia.
"Militants, sadly, are a highly renewable resource. If you kill the 'few thousand Hezbollah fighters,' a few thousand more will quickly take their place." Absolutely false. The Hezbollah fighters now engaged by the IDF are highly trained, seasoned veterans. Those who are killed will not be replaced anytime soon.
The Hezbollah fighters now engaged by the IDF are highly trained, seasoned veterans. Those who are killed will not be replaced anytime soon.
I have no doubt that *if* Israel is able to kill all the current Hezbollah fighters, that would represent a big temporary setback for that organizition.
But let's face it, Hezbollah exists because it's goals and ideology are shared by a large percentage of the surrounding population. Getting rid of fighters doesn't change that, and in fact, by bombing much of Lebanon, Israel has probably insured that Hezbollah will enjoy even greater support in the future.
The Tony Blankleys of the world believe that the solution to our problems is just killing the bad guys. But bad guys are a product of much deeper forces, and if you don't pay attention to those underlying forces, you can actually make a bad situation worse.
One of those underlying forces, according to noted authority O. bin Laden, has been the perceived weakness of Western response to attacks, dating from Tehran in 1978, to Lebanon in 1983, to World Trade Center I, to Mogadishu, to Khobar Towers, to the African embassies, to USS Cole. Another authority, Sun Tzu, observed that "if my enemy is forbidden to attack me, I cannot be defeated."
I doubt that Blankley or anyone else believes that "just" killing the bad guys is a solution. It is a necessary, but not sufficient, part of any solution.
Let me go a bit further: If anyone can proffer any evidence that "soft-spoken diplomacy" has succeeded in dealing with radical Islamists, viz. Hamas, the PLO and Hezbollah, I would be more than happy to consider that evidence. (I have in mind the fiascoes running from Henry Kissinger to Warren Christopher to Oslo, and all the violence that followed.)
The original "root cause" of all this is quite simply fundamentalist hatred of the West--indeed, of the Infidel wherever he is found--and it is 1,300 years old. It long predates the very existence of the United States. It has been successfully resisted only by superior military force, and only in the past 300 years. It is now enabled by terror-sponsoring states, most notably Iran and Syria, and it will presently be enabled by nuclear, biological and chemical weapons that it will not hesitate to use. I invite suggestions as to how sensibly to avoid that grim future.
Tony writes "And we are not without resources. Europe -- from Poland to
the Atlantic, from Sweden to Greece -- is over 700 million
strong. Hindu India is over a billion. North America is over 400
million. It is absurd to think that such a mass of civilization
cannot send sufficient troops to smash -- door to door and hand
to hand if necessary, and it probably will be necessary -- a few
thousand Hezbollah fighters."
Isn't it eaqually as absurd to think that "a few thousand Hezbollah fighters" can bring down all of Western Civilization? I'm not saying ignore the problem. Just keep it in perspective.
I think Matt Yglesias put it well when he wrote:
Hawks seem to have convinced themselves that American military might is like a power ring -- capable of achieving anything if only we have sufficient will. There are no objective limits to our capacities, no sticky situations that need to be handled cautiously, no awkward compromises to be brokered, and no stuff we’re just going to have to live with in the hopes that things will change for the better down the road. There are only goals, force, and will, and the only relevant question in any situation is whether we have the will to achieve our goals with force.
The problems in the Middle East are incredibly complex and don't lend themselves to easy solutions. But I think the intractability of these problems has led a lot of people to conclude that any approach short of overwhelming use of force is doomed to failure. But you can't just suspend reality. We simply don't have the capacity to invade and occupy all these countries. And even if we did, there is no logical reason to think it would make the situation better (see, e.g., Iraq).
Sometimes there just aren't good solutions.
"We simply don't have the capacity to invade and occupy all these countries. And even if we did, there is no logical reason to think it would make the situation better (see, e.g., Iraq)."
Au fucking contraire, as we diplomatists are wont to say. Iraq is immeasurably better in terms of the threat posed to the West by that nation and its government. It is even "better" from the standpoint of those who bean-count the deaths, at least if you believe the UN: five thousand children per month dead of malnutrition in the period before the Coaliton of the Willing brought that bastard down.
It is certainly true that "we" (read: USA, since no one else has the will to get involved) cannot invade and occupy all these countries. Hence the next logical step as this thing gets worse: regime change, with no nation-building to follow. We will bring you down, and we'll hope that your successors are more amenable to the norms of civilized behavior, and if they're not we'll bring them down too. Not a pretty prospect, but I await the suggestion of a constructive alternative. And if that suggestion is "soft-spoken diplomacy," I will resist the temptation to laugh quite bitterly.
"Isn't it equally as absurd to think that 'a few thousand Hezbollah fighters' can bring down all of Western Civilization?"
It is not at all absurd to think that a few thousand--or a few dozen--of them can do such harm to that Civilization as to render it unrecognizable. The simultaneous detonation of nuclear bombs (or dirty bombs, or chemical biological weapons), in, say, New York, Washington, Chicago, L.A. and, for good measure, Houston, would cause life as you have known it to cease forever, to be replaced by something you really don't want to contemplate. If you are realistic you must acknowledge that such an event can hardly be considered unlikely, and the development of such weapons by the likes of Iran and North Korea make it something close to inevitable. If ever there has been a time when the West needs all of its guns pointed outside the tent, it is right now, and instead we have Howard Dean, Clare Short, George Soros and a horde of useful idiots. I'm glad that I have already lived most of my life, and grateful that in the process I got more pussy than Frank Sinatra.
Au fucking contraire, as we diplomatists are wont to say. Iraq is immeasurably better in terms of the threat posed to the West by that nation and its government. It is even "better" from the standpoint of those who bean-count the deaths, at least if you believe the UN: five thousand children per month dead of malnutrition in the period before the Coaliton of the Willing brought that bastard down.
Um...and where is the evidence of this, exactly? The Iraqi military was so degraded from the first Gulf War and the subsequent diplomatic and commercial isolation as to be unable to provide the most cursory defense of the country, much less presenting a threat to Israel, its other neighbors, and most certainly to the United States. The argument that the current situation- an utterly ineffectual government, sectarian civil war and a sustained insurgency against US troops-is even equal to, much less "immeasurably better" than the one that existed before the US invasion, simply hasn't been made. There's no question that Iraq has been more lethal for Americans since 2003; over 2,000 have died there, along with another 20,000+ who have been injured. Nary a one was killed by Iraqi military action of any stripe in the time period between the end of the first Gulf War and the beginning of the second.
As for the humanitarian argument, you've got to be fucking kidding me. It's not our perogative to decide the best way to slaughter Iraqis, whether we want to starve them through economic sanctions, bomb them during open warfare, or create an environment wher their neighbors can cut their heads off and leave their bodies all around town while we hunker down in our bases. None of them have a shred of morality, and the latter two don't have a shred of legality, either.
It is not at all absurd to think that a few thousand--or a few dozen--of them can do such harm to that Civilization as to render it unrecognizable. The simultaneous detonation of nuclear bombs (or dirty bombs, or chemical biological weapons), in, say, New York, Washington, Chicago, L.A. and, for good measure, Houston, would cause life as you have known it to cease forever, to be replaced by something you really don't want to contemplate. If you are realistic you must acknowledge that such an event can hardly be considered unlikely, and the development of such weapons by the likes of Iran and North Korea make it something close to inevitable.
And if you are realistic, you must acknowledge that there isn't even a semblance of a connection between the current US foreign policy and the thwarting of your doomsday scenario. At the same time as the US has spent massive military and financial resources attacking countries with no nuclear or chemical weapons, they have cut funding for the collection and destruction of countries that have them in large quantities, like, say, the members of the former Soviet Union. There is nothing in our actions to demonstrate that we are serious about doing what is necessary to prevent nuclear proliferation, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that we are serious about using the military as a global petroleum defense force.
As for your concern about Iran and North Korea, well, if you lived such a long time, presumably you were around for the Soviet Union and their many nuclear weapons, and you probably caught the addition of, among others, Pakistan, India and (horror of horrors) France to the nuclear club. And yet, not a single atomic exchange has happened anywhere. Seeing as there is sixty years worth of evidence to suggest that the threat of nuclear retaliation is more than enough to prevent an initial nuclear strike and there is absolutely zippo evidence that Iran or North Korea would behave differently than every other nuclear power before them, I'm really interested as to how you're going to put forth the "we're inevitably doomed" argument.
I mean really. Pakistan and India haven't blown each other up. Ponder that one for a hot minute and then get back to me on who hates us more than they hate each other.
The problems in the Middle East are incredibly complex and don't lend themselves to easy solutions. But I think the intractability of these problems has led a lot of people to conclude that any approach short of overwhelming use of force is doomed to failure. But you can't just suspend reality. We simply don't have the capacity to invade and occupy all these countries. And even if we did, there is no logical reason to think it would make the situation better (see, e.g., Iraq).
Perhaps the point is that overwhelming force isn't on the table, and there's a reason why it isn't on the table- because the events that are taking place in the middle east simply aren't that important. I don't mean that glibly; obviously, there is a moral and humanitarian imperative to put an end to the violence there, particularly in the places where we were responsible for unleashing it. But the reality of things is that there is nothing even approaching a major military threat to ourselves or to our client state in the region, Israel. We can and will continue to inflict casualties at a massively disproportionate ratio, as will the IDF, as would any modern military force when engaged in battle against irregular militias with negligible striking power. If this were really "World War III," as FOX News has been trying so desperately to make us believe, then you would see the US act appropriately, with the first order of business being a draft and the creation of a million man army to deploy in the region. (One might also hope that the tax cuts might be repealed.) If the US had the political will to occupy and overthrow every government in the Middle East, they most certainly have the resources to do so. They could deploy armies and firepower on a scale unseen in human history, and if they wanted to fight the sort of "good war" they fought in 1941-1945, when they killed over 1,000,000 civilians through strategic bombing, it would probably stick. There is no question that we could fight that sort of war; instead, the question is, why would we want to? That level of national commitment to warfare requires a real threat to the existence of the society. Nazi Germany was one such threat, and everyone took it seriously. There isn't anything even remotely approaching that level of threat coming from any and all of our opponents, which is why our military and economic commitment is what it is. When it looks like the Seepoy Mutiny or the Boer War instead of the apocalyptic armageddon being pushed by the terrified residents of rural America, that's because it is.
(The reality is that as soon as our cars run on something other than gasoline, we'll turn out the light on the region and it will take its place alongside Southeast Asia and Central America in the pantheon of chimerical places that were supposedly of paramount importance for the continuing existence of our way of life. But until then, expect more breathless hysteria.)
Why don't they try this in the US. Every one who is bad is shot and killed on the street. Then Us would be a heaven on earth, right?
I don't know how blind can people. Stangewly enough no neocon was elected to office. I don't if you consider Vice Pres as being "elected" or "chosen".
Hence the next logical step as this thing gets worse: regime change, with no nation-building to follow. We will bring you down, and we'll hope that your successors are more amenable to the norms of civilized behavior, and if they're not we'll bring them down too.
Ah, more failed states leading to rogue nations. Just what the world needs. Dozens of Afghanistans.
What a fucking tool.
Iraq is immeasurably better in terms of the threat posed to the West by that nation and its government.
Iran is the winner of the Iraq war. The bloodshed in Lebanon is a direct result of Iran not having to worry about Saddam any longer; instead they are going to have an Iran-friendly Shia government in Baghdad. Not exactly what the neo-cons were planning on, a 'pro-Israel US-friendly democracy'. What a ridiculous fantasy that turned out to be.
So how is the US safer now?
Heckuva job Georgie.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home