A Lefty Peacenik Responds

JohnGalt scared me off the link in his thoughtful post when he mentioned it was 18 pages. Like many, I read and blog when I am compiling code or waiting for something to load. Long articles and magazines are weekend work. I got to it last night and it is very good.

In "No Substitute for Victory," John Lewis calls for America to match the aggressiveness shown its enemies in WWII. He compares the responses (we did nuke Japan) and the efficacy of those responses. Germany and Japan are peaceful democratic allies today, while the MidEast seems to be slipping away after our less aggressive involvement there.

It's a smart piece and well worth the read (if you don't print it, it's not 18 pages). There is certainly much to agree with. A more muscular approach would serve American interests and both hasten the arrival and increase the probability of lasting stability in the region. Lewis is also interesting in his comparison of Japanese Shintoism as a religion vs. a government to Islam as a religion and Islamic states. Lastly, he is right to target Iran as focus in the fomenting and distribution of terror and Islamic Statism.

Yet, the article's main premise is a call to dismiss the "hearts and minds" approach entirely and to use overwhelming force to produce fear and unconditional surrender. The reference to A-bomb success in Japan (not to mention JohnGalt's bold type "burn that regime to the ground") clearly call for nuclear weapons (which our C-in-C cannot even pronounce) to be used.

Lewis claims this would happen if not for the Objectivist bete-noirs: pragmatists and altruists. I'll not take the flag for the altruists, but I will voice pragmatic concerns to Lewis's approach.

We were fortunate in enemies in WWII. There were Japanese, Italian, and German states to attack and there were also leaders of those states who could execute enforceable surrenders. There are a billion Muslims in the world in the MidEast, across Asia to the pacific rim, Europe, Boulder, everywhere. I want to ask Mr. Lewis whom you nuke after 9/11. He has his sights squarely on Iran now, but post 9/11 you have the Wahabbist wackos in Saudi Arabia, Taliban in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Yassir Arafat in the Palestinian controlled areas. The phrase “target rich” comes to mind. You still leave the most populous Muslim nation in the world, Indonesia, where clerics – as Lewis describes – seek to impose an Islamic State.

That’s where a little pragmatism comes in handy. I think that the President was right to topple the Taliban and I number myself among the shrinking minority who still support toppling Hussein’s Baathist fear society in Iraq.

I highly highly recommend that every American read “The Looming Tower” by Lawrence Wright. It is a sober look at the enemy we face, its history, and the reason that drives them. I used the word reason carefully. These folks build their arguments on a faulty premise, but they are rational actors.

I’m fine with the idea of big force. I think that both wars in Iraq needed Sherman’s drive to the sea. I just don’t agree that we have a target we can scare sufficiently to make us safe.

Posted by jk at December 13, 2006 10:14 AM