Looks Like a Good Weekend!

Newt Gringrich wrote an excellent op-ed for the WaPo yesterday titled “The Only Option is to Win.” The op-ed is fairly predictable in its content… in other words, it’s nothing new and basically reinforces Mr. Gingrich’s point that the US is engaged in what Newt calls “a third world war.” One could quibble with Newt’s numbering scheme, but that’s a minor point. The op-ed, however, focuses primarily on the threat of a nuclear Iran, to wit:

In fact an Iran armed with nuclear weapons is a mortal threat to American, Israeli and European cities. If a nonnuclear Iran is prepared to finance, arm and train Hezbollah, sustain a war against Israel from southern Lebanon and, in Holbrooke's own words, "support actions against U.S. forces in Iraq," then what would a nuclear Iran be likely to do? Remember, Iranian officials were present at North Korea's missile launches on our Fourth of July, and it is noteworthy that Venezuela's anti-American dictator, Hugo Chávez, has visited Iran five times.

It is because the Bush administration has failed to win this argument over the direct threat of Iranian and North Korean nuclear and biological weapons that Americans are divided and uncertain about our national security interests. (ed: emphasis mine)

Once again, not much new here for readers of this blog, especially the focus on Iran.

But.

Let’s focus on the “…Americans are divided and uncertain about our national security interests” bit. And, just for grins and giggles, let’s look at how one of the Big Dog Lefty blogs responds to Mr. Gingrich’s op-ed. Just a couple of excerpts:

This piece is explicitly coming out against any kind of containment. (Naturally, since containment worked in the cold war and is thus discredited as are all things that turn out in retrospect to have been right.) Note also how he says "if they can be disarmed with less violence that would be desirable." You can almost see the pinched, sour expression on his face. He is subtly backing up his silly WWIII rhetoric by saying we are simultaneously fighting "the terrorists," Iran and North Korea and there is no way to deal with them but "defeat" them militarily. (I particularly like his cynical use of the term holocaust in this discussion.)

[…]

I'm sure all this macho talk is emotionally satisfying to some people but there is no reason that Democrats should allow themselves to be trash-talked into another Iraq style debate where the only parameters that can even be discussed are the how not the why. That's what they are trying to do --- get us into a position where we will start saying "ok, yes, this is WWIII, but I don't think we are at war with Iran and North Korea --- just Iran." Or "of course this is an existential threat and we are in a global war against islamic fascism, but we should get the UN involved, don't you think?"

I can’t quite follow the logic used here, i.e., “since containment worked in the cold war and is thus discredited as are all things…” Mr. Gingrich didn’t even address “containment” at all in his op-ed, he spoke of the failings of non-stop diplomacy, that is trying to talk the mullahs out of acquiring The Bomb. None the less, containment was an appropriate strategy for the Cold War, where our principal enemy was (a) rational and (b) accepted, however reluctantly, the terrible logic of mutually assured destruction. I’m not the first to note that a regime with an institutionalized martyr complex isn’t exactly impressed with the specter of dying for their cause. In fact, they welcome martyrdom. After all, this is the regime that sent human waves of children to their deaths (with cheap plastic “keys to paradise” around their necks) during the Iran-Iraq war. The rest of Digby’s logic is similarly silly, especially his prospective response “of course this is an existential threat…but we should get the UN involved…”. The UN has been involved, to no effect or result, except to elicit sneers from Tehran.

Digby then goes on to raise the specter of American “first use” of nuclear weapons, resurrecting Seymour Hersh’s New Yorker piece on the administration’s first strike war plans with —are you ready?— tactical nukes. Strawman, Digby. But, since we’re on the subject, small tactical nukes, specifically bunker-busting tactical nukes, aren’t such a bad idea. We’re not talking multi-megaton city-busters here…we’re speaking of low-yield bunker busters. But, I digress.

Digby’s piece is a perfect example of those folks on the Left who are in desperate denial, or, in other words, simply don’t get it. I’d like to refer him to a couple of old news items, here and here. A government campaign that organizes nation-wide chants of “Death to America!” by school children, and a parliament that chants “Death to America!” while authorizing the continuation of Iran’s uranium enrichment program. Yeah, we can reason with a government like this. In a pig’s eye.

I didn’t mention yesterday that one of the reasons I was so enthralled with the UK terror bust was the fact the town of High Wycombe was at the center of the story. I know High Wycombe pretty well; I lived there from 1980 – 1983. Of course, I’m sure much has changed in the 23 years since I left. But, still…

Today’s Pic: Just an old warmonger at the (since renamed) Strategic Air Command Museum outside of Omaha. May, 2000. The hair's a lot shorter these days.