Victory is inevitable Tom Smith

Maybe not quite inevitable.  But highly likely.  These two posts on the GWOT say something I have been thinking for a while.  What worries me is that it may take another big attack on the US to focus our minds.  But I simply do not see losing the war on terror as a remotely likely outcome.  A major American city getting destroyed by a nuke — that could happen.  But if it did happen, I think the reaction would be a profound rage and determination, not capitulation.  There is an American street, and it doesn’t go through Cambridge.  Europe, I am more worried about.  China is also worth some significant anxiety.  We may also have to put up with one or more nasty theocracies in the middle east and containing them long term.  But I think the scale of the threat posed by Islamic fascism (for want of a better term — to me fascism connotes modernism, which Islamic fascism ain’t) is not as great as that presented by the Axis fascists, or the communists.  If we let one or more Islamic fundamentalist dictatorships become well armed with nuclear and other WMDs, then I grant that could change.  But at this point, I just don’t believe we are that stupid.  True, I have on occassion underestimated the stupidity of our leaders.

BUT about Benard Lewis

(which is linked to on HH’s site, which Maimon links to below . . . ) Ican accept everything he says (he’s the expert after all) until he getsto his last sentence — that either we give the Islamic world theirfreedom, or else they will destroy us.  No, I don’t buy that.  I takeit that is the central neo-con premiss — that democracy has to broughtto various benighted lands of the Middle East, and maybe Africa too, orelse the hordes will come pouring out and overthrow Westerncivilization.  I don’t think so.  Democratizing the Middle East wouldbe one way to undermine radical Islam, assuming it is possible, aboutwhich I am agnostic, and skeptical.  I would like to be proven wrong onthat.  But, at the end of the day, American national security does notdepend on peace and justice triumphing around the world.  This is whereI get off the neo-con happy talk express.  We are a rich country with aconsiderable martial tradition.  If some country does not want to jointhe 21st century, with all its ambiguous charms, but wants instead toproduce arms they can hand over to terrorists, or be a conventioncenter for nutty Islamic triumphalism, we can make them the latestdemonstration project for the USAF.  I really think this neo-connotion, which traces back to Marxist idealism — let’s transform theworld with our wonderful ideas — that the only way to win a war is toconvert the enemy to goodness and light, is a big mistake.  Job one inwar is to destroy the enemy, not improve him.  I’m talking Rome andCarthage here, only in our case, the disparity of power is muchgreater.  By all means, encourage, for example, the Iranian democrats,give the Iranian leadership every chance to stop the Bomb for Allahproject, but, if push comes to shove, we just have to make itphysically impossible for them to build the bomb.  Obviously, tocontinue the Iran example, every means of diplomacy should be exhaustedfirst, because a world full of even more enraged Muslims after Iran isvery punishingly bombed, would be quite dangerous, just not asdangerous as one with totally insane religious nutcase in possession ofnuclear weapons.  But, and this is my only point, our job is just todefend the US, not to make the Middle East a nicer place to live. Israel, making life better for Iraqis, promoting freedom and justice,all that comes later.  I think the so-called Realists underestimate theimportance of ideas and ideology in foreign affairs, but I think thecritics of the neo-cons who call them Wilsonians and starry-eyeddo-gooders, have a point as well.  Building democracies is somethingyou do if possible after you have destroyed the enemy, but first youdestroy the enemy.  I think Saddam needed to be destroyed, and we havedone that, and we are obliged to clean up the mess we made as best wecan. I think many far from ideal states of affairs go forward in Iraqare consistent with our being safer than we were with Saddam in power.