By and large, Nick Lemann’s series of interviews with various Bush administration muckety-mucks is reassuring. They all seem to get it. Alas, Lemann doesn’t. Lemann points to an old document, fathered by the nexus around Cheney, that almost a decade ago argued that the United States has an interest in preventing any rival super-power from emerging. He then links that to this administration’s robust post-Afghanistan extension of its war against terror to Iraq. It’s not a crazy link. It’s just an unnecessary one. There’s no need to find some buried or arcane reason for the administration’s recent policy. September 11 was a reason. Lemann still thinks of this event as some sort of context for the new war, or as a rationale. Sure, he notices that it precipitated big re-thinks among many of the people he interviewed. But he still doesn’t seem to absorb what that day revealed. It showed that a small but highly organized group was capable of anything against the citizens of the United States, including the deployment of weapons of mass destruction. That made continued toleration of Iraq’s menace simply unacceptable to the American people and untenable for any responsible president of the United States. What Bush has done is simply react to a seismic event – with common sense and determination. It was far from some “great doctrinal shift.” It was the least any president can or should do.
THEY STILL DON’T GET IT II: Then there’s Bob Wright, writing in the somewhat listless post-Kinsley Slate. Bob gives a report-card on the war on terror and finds much to be leery of. His basic argument seems to be: if you don’t want more terror, suck up to the prejudices of the terrorists. What he means by this is rendered quite clear by his opening paragraph:
Good news: The Bush administration has finally “thrown the prestige of the White House behind addressing Middle East violence,” according to the New York Times. This should be welcomed by Americans who get the picture-who see that, because hatred of America will translate into American deaths with growing efficiency as technology advances, the festering Palestinian issue is a long-term security threat to the United States.
The premise here is that hatred of America – or at least the hatred that leads directly to Islamo-fascist terrorism – is rational, that America can prevent it, and that one way of doing that is to cater to the demands of the haters. As is often the case with this kind of argument, Wright doesn’t specify exactly how one can deter the al-Aqsa brigades, for example, or Iranian-financed Hezbollah or the PLO. His message seems to be: ‘Just calm everything down and they’ll hate you less. And whatever you do, don’t fight back. It will only make them madder.’ Of course, Wright won’t come out and say he doesn’t want a regime change in Baghdad. He’s happy to see a war against Iraq – but only as a last resort. Apparently, one massive war started by Iraq, Iraq’s use of weapons of mass destruction, its avoidance of U.N. inspections, and violations of umpteen clauses of the Gulf War settlement doesn’t mean we’re yet at the last resort. Besides, Wright is skeptical of the whole idea, regardless of timing:
Of course, that invasion [of Iraq] could itself in some ways increase American security, but it would also have the downside of increasing the amount of Islamic hatred of America. So, one way to summarize the Bush Middle East policy is this: Let’s stop the carnage that is making America more enemies every day-at least, let’s stop it for long enough so that America can make some more enemies.
I think that means Bob thinks that an invasion of Iraq is a net loss, and would increase Islamist hatred for the U.S. He seems utterly blind to the fact that our victory in Afghanistan does not seem to have invited a wave of Islamic anger, or a ramping up of terrorism. For some reason, the terrorists reacted to a massive assault by running away. Who woulda thunk it? And ordinary Iranians reacted to the “axis of evil” speech by increasing their resistance to their evil regime. Go figure. I know the word ‘appeasement’ is thrown around a lot – but what other word is there for a policy that argues that confrontation of evil can only, in the long run, exacerbate it?
The Dish 