The War

Beiruthaithammussawiafpgetty

It seems to me that two facts are slowly emerging. The first is that Iran is increasingly serious about becoming a regional power, extending its reach into Lebanon and Iraq, and perhaps attempting a putsch in Syria – for a Shiite crescent. That Iran has sent some very serious missiles into Hezbollah’s hands and is egging on Hezbollah for more provocation is yet another signal that Ahmadinejad really does want a regional conflagration, and will brandish his nukes belligerently whenever he gets his hands on them.

The second is that Iraq is in a de facto civil war. I don’t know what else to call a hundred deaths a day, and 6,000 every two months. If you occupy a post-totalitarian, bitterly divided country and provide enough troops to adequately police, say, Texas, then you’ll get the civil war Rumsfeld asked for and insisted on. And so, thanks to Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, the policy of democratization never had a chance of having a peaceful example in Iraq and has instead destabilized the region further – showing for good measure that Islamist parties who gain power democratically will use that power immediately to wage war. Their target will be Jews, and any Muslims who don’t subscribe to their vision of the new Caliphate or whatever theocratic lunacy they are currently pursuing.

The scenarios are various. In an escalating civil war in Iraq, the Shiites will surely win – and massacres of Sunnis will become the daily headlines. What we do with our troops at that point will depend on events, but active involvement on one side or another would be a disaster. The potential for a wider Sunni-Shiite war across the Muslim Middle East is also now a real one – like the religious wars in Europe in the seventeenth century, only with far more destructive potential. Some might advise the U.S. to strike a deal with the beleaguered Assad regime in Syria, or put its weight behind the now-very-nervous predominantly Sunni autocracies as a counter-weight to Iran. I’m not so sure. Decades of backing such autocrats helped create the Islamist wave. Picking another losing side looks like short-sighted masochism to me.

I guess what I’m saying is that a period of appalling warfare may now be inevitable, and the only way for the region’s tectonic plates to find a new and more stable platform. The real danger is a newly emboldened Islamist region with a chokehold on the world’s oil. But that danger already exists, and has existed for a while. 9/11 was a symptom of something far wider – a struggle within the Muslim world for meaning and power in the modern world. We can pretend we can affect that outcome, but I fear we cannot. We can only watch and redouble our efforts to get energy from sources other than from a region on the verge of full-scale conflict.

(Photo: Haitham Mussawi/AFP/Getty.)

July 19

Gayhangingsiran

Just a reminder of the 24 vigils being held today for the two Iranian teens hanged a year ago for a gay affair. If you’re on the Cape, or visiting Provincetown, please drop by our small-town vigil outside Town Hall on Commercial Street at 5 – 6 pm. Some of us are lucky enough to live in idyllic seaside towns in freedom; others live in fear and terror. They need our support and our solidarity. The web will distribute images and news of these vigils and give hope where it is most needed.

Quote for the Day

"Today many nations are stirred up by Israel’s response to the Hezbollah rocket attack and kidnapping. They say it’s extreme, not appropriate to the circumstances. Many believe that Syria will soon try to provoke a Jewish response, and Israel’s 72 hour ultimatum may be their cue. If that should cause a further escalation we can easily envision a scenario that includes the final fulfillment of Isaiah 17, the destruction of Damascus.
The phrase "rushing of many waters" is often used to describe a loud voice. Such an escalation would certainly cause an incredible uproar among the nations, and many loud voices.
If you listen carefully, you can almost hear the footsteps of the Messiah," – evangelical writer, Jack Kelley, on the GraceThruFaith website. Kelley’s bio can be read here.

“Objectively Pro-Kim?”

A reader writes:

You write:

"As for my later comments about opponents of the Iraq war being "objectively pro-Saddam," that seems to me to be indisputable. If they’d had their way, he’d still be in power."

Oh, great. I guess those of us opposed to war with North Korea are "objectively pro-Kim Jong Il." Does that include you?

For someone I consider to be pretty smart, this is an incredibly simplistic, stupid and dangerous viewpoint. I opposed the Iraq war, and I’m no more objectively pro-Saddam than you are objectively pro-thousands of Iraqis and Americans killed and injured (I’ll be happy to list some of the other fallout from this war if you’d like).

There are pros and cons to most things. Believe it or not, for most of us who opposed the Iraq war, we thought the costs would outweigh the benefits, never mind not trusting the Bushies.

Well, objectively (and it’s Orwell’s original usage), I am pro-Kim Jong-Il, and if he didn’t have the capacity to take out Seoul, I’d be far less sanguine about it. Yes, there are costs and benefits to all actions. One of the costs of inaction with respect to Iraq would be Saddam still in power, his psychopathic sons waiting for accession, continued starvation and immiseration of thousands, more money being sent to bribed UN officials, and merely a delayed (and thereby ultimately more virulent) spiral into the kind of civil, sectarian chaos we are now witnessing. Look: I got a lot wrong. But I am still glad that monster is in jail.

Parsing Graham

A reader writes:

I’m a little confused by Lindsey Graham’s statement.

While I agree with the quote on its face, I find that, coming from him, it’s a little deceptive. Consider his and Senator Kyl’s recent failed attempt to mislead the Supreme Court in a amicus brief in the Hamdan case where they argued that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case. Their brief relied heavily on a piece of "legislative history" that was in fact a bogus colloquy that never occurred on the record. John Dean has more here. As a result, I have to view any position on the issue of detainee treatment with some degree of skepticism as to its sincerity.

Jumping the Shark

I find myself having to agree with Glenn Greenwald on how the far-right blogosphere has jumped the rhetorical shark this past year, aided and abetted by more mainstream conservative bloggers. I also think they’re overdue for media attention.

(By the way, one of his commenters again brings up my infamous sentence a few days after 9/11 when I predicted that small enclaves of leftists might blame America for the attack and become what amounts to a "fifth column." I regret that rhetoric, expressed my regret days after the piece was published, and only ever applied it to those who immediately sympathized with al Qaeda in September 2001. As for my later comments about opponents of the Iraq war being "objectively pro-Saddam," that seems to me to be indisputable. If they’d had their way, he’d still be in power. On the intellectual honesty front, I think expressing regret for rhetoric written while human ash was still in the air in New York City days after I used it is fair enough. And I have also expressed "shame and sorrow" for my misjudgments on Iraq in general. Some on the left want more from war-supporters like me. I’m for self-criticism; not masochism.)