The war against Islamic fascism has seen several set-backs this week.
John Podhoretz suggests that we have already won the first two Iraq wars:
The first war was, of course, the actual invasion of Iraq, during which the United States and its allies moved with unprecedented speed and agility to Baghdad and toppled Saddam Hussein's evil regime in three weeks' time. ...
....
The Second Iraq War was the guerrilla-terrorist assault on Coalition forces. The Sunni insurgents made common cause with the al Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, with the horrific results we all know so well. Like any guerrilla-terror war, its purpose was to grind down and demoralize the enemy and to use the enemy's own internal contradictions against it.
Unfortunately, we are in serious danger of losing the third Iraq war:
But now Iraqis are dying at a gruesome rate - in civil strife between Shiites and Sunnis. As many as 1,300 people were killed last month alone.
This is the Third Iraq War, and the most striking aspect of it is that it doesn't involve us. The Sunnis have now embarked on what I think is a pretty crazy strategy of trying to engage Iraq's Shiites in vicious sectarian conflict.
He also notes how little impact we can have on this war and how dangerous such an outcome would be:
If the Sunnis and Shiites really go at it, it's hard to see what exactly we can do to get them to stop. And thus, if the civil war flowers fully, the Third Iraq War may be the one we're going to lose. Even though we're not one of the combatants, a sectarian victory by Shiites fighting with Iran's backing will strengthen Tehran. And a stronger Iran is not something any American should want to see.
Caroline Glick believes that Israel, and by extension the West, is losing the current campaign against Hezbollah, in part because of the fecklessness of the Israeli leadership and in part because they are not addressing "root causes" of the conflict:
This is the case because none of the moves being considered involve the one action that would prevent the next war. That action is an Israeli victory against Hizbullah in Lebanon, and an Israeli and allied strike against Hizbullah's state sponsors Syria and Iran, which promote Hizbullah's wanton aggression against Israel as a central campaign in their global jihad aimed at annihilating the Jewish state and defeating Western civilization.
I think both John Podhoretz and Caroline Glick are frustrated by different aspects of the same problem. At the moment, it is clear that we have defeated the al Qaeda inspired Islamic fascists to a very great extent. Sunni inspired terrorist atrocities directed at apostate Muslim populations has been so discredited that most Muslim nations are now actively assisting the Western allies in clamping down on their activities (though there remain very significant sources of support for them within various elements of Sunni Islam.) Unfortunately, Shia Islamic fascism has always been the greater threat, and their state sponsor, Iran, remains a Gordian knot for the West.
Israel can not win their campaign against Hezbollah as long as Iran remains ready, willing, and able to resupply the terrorists with men and arms; the democratic forces in Iraq will never be able to win their way to stability as long as Iran continues to be ready, willing, and able to supply the terrorists with the resources they need to continue to foment instability.
In both cases, it is clear that it takes very little for Iran to maintain instability in the region and the West, which includes Israel, has no good options for putting a stop to their behavior. The UN Security Council efforts, led by France and Britain, with German diplomatic support, is working about as well as most UN efforts, which is poorly or not at all. Perhaps a more unified approach from the civilized world would be able to induce Iran to be a better International citizen, but that is hard to imagine and there is certainly no evidence such unity of understanding or purpose is occurring now.
Iran's trump card, at the moment, is not a nuclear weapon (yet), it is the fact that no one wants to risk seeing the entire region descend into chaos and war (despite what some claim to know that the neocons "really" want.)
Hezbollah's attack on Israel is a clear gambit by Iran to push what they see as their advantage. If the outcome leaves Hezbollah intact, even in a decimated state, Iran will be emboldened. Chaos is always easier to produce than stability and Iran is the world's premier expert on producing chaos.
Stopping Iran's ability to foment chaos, by supplying Iraqi Shia terrorists with advanced IEDs or re-supplying Hezbollah with long range rockets, for just two examples, is the only way to attempt to resolve the greater crisis without open war.
Unfortunately, the West is not psychologically ready, willing, and able to stop Iran, with real sanctions for instance, which, paradoxically, makes war much more likely.
Many of us on the neocon side of the ledger have remarked, repeatedly, that current conditions resemble Europe in the 1930s. The danger of Hitler and Nazi Germany was apparent to many people at that time but the only solutions seemed to involve disastrous outcomes. Would war in 1938 have prevented the greater disaster that occurred? We take it as a given today, but at the time, no one was psychologically or militarily prepared for the cataclysm of war.
Iran is our Nazi Germany. They have made it clear that they will not be stopped until they are forced to stop. They have stated and restated their position time and again. If anyone can see a way to avoid greater conflict, I would be more than happy to hear it. It is clear that the International community (ie, the West) will not take any actioin until and unless they have no choice. Iran could yet precipitate a war prematurely (as the Islamists have a tendency to do) but that is a weak reed to rest upon.
And August 22 (though it may well be just another empty threat) is only two weeks from now.
Recent Comments