WaPo NeoCon Logic

The bipolarity of the Washington Post's political commentaries is a welcome step up from the programmatic ideological leftward tilt of the "First Draft of Misinformation" called the New York Times.

In a bit of a respite from its cloying taste for leftist fossils like Dan Balz, {the Post has an article by neocon Dan Muravchik which also leans too far to the right, but serves as a useful counterbalance to the incessant bombardment of rad-left tropes dominating the Post's pages and completely crowding out all else at the NYT.

The contrast between Reagan's courage toward the "evil empire" and his faintheartedness toward Middle Eastern terrorists underscores the magnificence of Bush's achievement in marshaling our country for a war against terrorism. Middle Eastern terrorists had been coldly murdering Americans for three decades, but from Nixon through Clinton, no president dared face the issue head-on. The fight promised to be too nasty, and it required a strategy for changing the politics and psychology of the Middle East, for which there was no guidebook. So each administration had contented itself with shaking a symbolic fist or issuing some subpoenas while leaving the problem to metastasize.

This led to the Sept. 11 attacks, putting Bush to the test. Liberals said we should continue to treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue. Others would have attacked al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and left it at that. In contrast, Bush set forth the enormous goal of destroying terrorist groups; cutting off government support for terrorists, if necessary by regime changes; and engineering a new culture in the Middle East by means of democratization. This was a plan to warm the hearts of neocons, embodying ideas for which we had long been arguing (and giving rise to inflated tales of neocon influence, even though few neocons served in the administration).

While I supported the original invasion of Iraq, the wholesale stupidity of entrusting nation-building to the Pentagon [after firing Arabist Gen. Garner and his coterie of Middle East experts gathered for the post-fall of Baghdad] beggars the imagination.

A concept as staggering as a democratic parliamentary government in a broken society would have to take into account recent history, including the only previous experiment in democracy which crumbled into a Sunni autocracy [due to a Shi'ite boycott of the polls in a 1920 election].

But the choice was simple. After Arafat's nyet in 2000 to the Clinton/Barak two-state proposal, the US had to either support Israel and damn the consequences, or do the two-step minuet.

First the Cole Bombing and then 9/11 brought into relief what thirty years of terror since Black September had foreshadowed---fight them there or fight them here. And as the recent attacks on Israel proved:

When Israel was attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah, two tentacles of the international terrorist jihad, much of the rest of the world responded in knee-jerk fashion, chastising Israel's reaction as "disproportionate." But Bush insisted on supporting Israel's attempt to break the terrorist sword hanging over it.

Having travelled in every country involved extensively [and lived in Lebanon close to a year], I believe that Israel has to assert superiority militarily until a rational Arab coalition can control the rogue elements among its own populations. A Ta'if type agreement which the Saudis proffered a few years ago was close to ideal for the Israelis, but Arafat couldn't control the Palestinian crazies.

The American ultra-left has taken Jim Jones' Kool-Aid and offered it for distribution nation-wide, to the applause of masochistic self-doubters across the land. The media applauds because moonbat demonstrations make good copy and wild accusations against GWB are starting to gain traction---including the latest that Bush and Cheney planned 9/11. Insanity on the left is nothing new, but they are starting to exceed their own personal records of clinically psychotic illnesses masquerading as policy agendas.

But not even the bleats of Noam Chomsky can obscure the fact that an entire swath of politically unstable countries seethes with discontent---and, as always, blames someone else for their problems. Muravchik finishes with scary stuff:

Bush has taken on the one problem that is by far most important, and he has done it with remarkable perseverance. He led our nation into a war that is both just and necessary and that he knew could not be finished on his watch -- a thankless undertaking. For this he deserves unflagging support from neocons and other conservatives, and indeed from all Americans.

In a world of nuclear Irans and North Koreas, there may be no other recourse than to eschew blackmail and just attack the threats at their source. But I fear the Pollyanna left will appeal to soft bromides ala Clinton, and leave Israel to fend for itself.