The Batshit Style In American Politics
J @ Omphalos pointed me in the direction of this lovely article at Foreign Policy, in which Joshua Muravchik writes a neocon apologia, trying to figure out how to recoup after the massive losses of last week. It hits all the major neocon points–hey, we were campus lefties who saw the light!–acknowledges both that the transformation of the military was a bad idea (but Iraq wasn’t) and that America needs to rely more on its diplomatic corps. And then, amazingly, this bit:
Make no mistake, President Bush will need to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities before leaving office. It is all but inconceivable that Iran will accept any peaceful inducements to abandon its drive for the bomb. Its rulers are religio-ideological fanatics who will not trade what they believe is their birthright to great power status for a mess of pottage. Even if things in Iraq get better, a nuclear-armed Iran will negate any progress there. Nothing will embolden terrorists and jihadists more than a nuclear-armed Iran.
Isn’t that sweet? While the small-government fiscal conservatives and the big-government social conservatives are busy chewing their own arms off, trying to figure out how that one-decade-stand could possibly have gone wrong, the neoconservative movement is sticking to its principles, and its guns. Because its principles, as far as I can determine, are these:
10 Bomb the shit out of something.
20 Call anybody who disagrees with them “anti-American.”
30 GOTO 10
It amazes me how few ideas the movement actually has left. Sure, Mr. Muravchik mentions that America needs to use its diplomatic prowess more than just military force. Specifically, he mentions aiding Mideast moderates in a new fashion that is somewhere between useless and making them look like “American stooges.” But that doesn’t work, because any group in the Mideast that isn’t an American stooge is, by their definition, not moderate. Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, instead of being engaged through diplomacy and slowly transformed into non-combatant political groups, such as the progress with the IRA and S”nn Fein over the past fifteen years, are cut off from any geopolitical process entirely. You could try to influence the Arab street, driving them towards more “moderate” parties, but if you could tell me which party that is in, say, Palestine, that would be awesome.
At some point, you have to swallow the bitter pill and sit down with groups that make you nauseous. You have to find some bit of common ground, however small, that both parties can agree upon. You have to have full faith in the dialogue in order to make it work–it can’t just be a series of show summits en route to a shock and awe campaign. I mean, come on. Iranian officials want to speak to the US. Syrian officials want to speak to the US. But nowhere in Mr. Muravchick’s “comeback story” does it actually mention sitting down and talking with these rogue governments tyring to come back in from the cold. The diplomatic corps is looked at primarily as a weapon to combat–you guessed it!–anti-Americanism, by utilizing talking points and telling people how great the West is. In moderation? A fantastic idea. Sign me up. But on its own, with no tangible dialogue taking place between the US, Iran, Syria, and North Korea, it cannot be a successful policy. Without it, all we’re doing is taunting these countries, occasionally waving a 500-pound-bomb-stick. The only carrot we offer is not to impose more sanctions than we already have, which isn’t really the most powerful incentive. Even Reagan sat down with the Soviets.
Inciting simple dissatisfaction amongst the people is not the way to go here. These regimes have already held on longer than the former Soviet Republics, so mere resentment will likely not be enough to overthrow their regime. And hopes that new media will overwhelm state-run channels, prompting rebellion, are hard to justify when Iranians have access to the internet and email already. Most don’t like the regime, either, but you don’t see them rising up to throw the mullahs off.
The best weapon that we have to fight anti-Americanism, jihadism, extremism–whatever the hell you want to call it–in the middle east is the weapon we’ve been loathe to use: talking with them. Opening up diplomatic channels, instead of acting as a giant bully, is the key to minimizing the threat of rogue states. Leaving Iran and Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah, North Korea and so on, to stew in their own juices only makes them more likely to lash out. That’s bad. Failing to speak to them means that America is neglecting its duty as a world leader. And neglecting the country’s role as a world leader is something that everybody–especially Mr. Muravchik–can agree is the worst of all possible options.