I heard the NYT's Frank Rich interviewed on 770 radio this morning, by Mark Simone, about Rich's new best-seller, The Greatest Story Ever Sold.
Rich is no dummy, but he is a knee-jerk partisan. For example, when Simone pointed out that the Clinton administration viewed Iraq in the same way - as a global threat and as a threat to the US, Rich dismisses that as irrelevant.
Rich's main point seems to be that the war was "sold" on the basis of flawed intel because the neos wanted the war. Of course the war was "sold" - leaders always have to "sell" wars because civilized people hate war. FDR was one of the great Music Men of world history. He could sell almost anything, but even he needed Pearl Harbor to "sell" the US on the war that he had long wanted us in, in Europe.
Bush couldn't sell water in a desert.
But Rich wants to talk about the flawed intel about Iraq's threat. Fine - it was flawed. But intel is always flawed. In life, we always act on incomplete information. This flawed intel was believed by the UN, the US, Britain, France, Germany, and Russia. You have to go on what you have, and you have make a decision. The buck stops somewhere. And the risks of inaction, in life, are usually comparable to the risks of action, even though passively-inclined folks are reluctant to accept that fact about life.
Odd, is it not, that so many are prepared to take us back to the stone age because of highly speculative and politically-driven ideas about man-made global warming - but those same folks don't want to see the danger of the Moslem imperialism which is on the front pages every day?
Were the neos biased towards nation-building in the Middle East? You bet. They still see it as the best path towards peace and long-term stability in the Middle East. Is it a fantasy? I don't know. But I still think Clinton would have gone into Iraq if he had had the stomach for it (and, if he had, I have no doubt that Rich would have defended that decision).
Based on the interview, the most important flaw in Rich's case against the war in Iraq is that he does not put it in context of global Moslem imperialism, of which Jihad is one particularly malignant piece. Rich does not want to talk about Afghanistan, or Iran, or the whole "circle of fire" -from Chechnya to the Balkans to Lebanon to Somalia to Indonesia to Thailand - that Bernard Lewis talks about all the time. Not relevant. What? It has even reached France, now. And gee, I almost forgot - New York City and London too. It's getting to be a big circle.
Iraq, like all wars, was/is debatable - especially with 20-20 hindsight. Saddam foolishly called the UN's and Bush's bluff, and discovered that it was no bluff. "Don't mess with Texas."
Thus in the spirit of Dr. Sanity and others, and borrowing the idiom of Al Gore, I will use the term "Jihad Deniers." Is Islamic imperialism a serious danger to us or not? That is what it all comes down to. Clearly Rich, in his current positioning, thinks it isn't. Many will wish to agree with him - until the next catastrophic attack brings the truth home again that it's not all about oil, and that it's too big for the police.
But if you think it's all about oil, then don't be a hypocrite - quit driving and flying. And if you believe it's all about the Jews - then dump Israel overboard (down the well?). But, IMO, neither of those would help one bit. Oil wealth is what funds Jihad - especially from the Saudis: it ain't about poverty - it's about wealth, power, and religion. A war of cultures, as they say. But the world will not give up their Texas tea until it runs out, and that will not be for a few centuries, at least.
I think it is a danger. Not a threat to get hysterical about, and yet a threat to be forceful about and to use force to address. Every detail may be debatable - as was regime change in Iraq - but the guesstimation of threat is the bottom line.
Jihad will continue to be a danger to the world, long after Iraq is finished. Our debates will continue, as they should, but shameful partisan sniping - gotcha games - is not honest and serious debate. Our governments and our military will be facing these issues for many years: our protection is the main reason we have hired them (the Left seems to always want to forget that is what national governments are for - we could do everything else we might want to do locally), but we cannot expect perfection from them.
Clinton and Albright tried the limp-wristed approach, and it didn't work out well. Bush is having trouble too, by trying to wage a "limited, compassionate" war. Who has a better idea, other than dhimmitude?
