Must-read of the day: Michael Young on the return of the “realists”
posted at 5:27 pm on November 18, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Arab liberals screamed for years about U.S. support for the region’s dictators, writes the opinion editor of the Lebanon Daily Star. Then Bush came along and knocked off Saddam, and what happened? They screamed about imperialism.
Now the same cynical morons who set the hug-a-thug policy are back in charge. And it won’t just be reformists in the Middle East who end up suffering for it.
There are two problems with a return to realism past. The first is that 9/11, whichever way you cut it, was a by-product of that approach. Because militant Islam thrives in repressive Arab societies, because America can only appear more hateful to peoples who see it bolstering their absolute rulers, nothing prevents another terrorist attack against the US. That is the fatal flaw in the realists’ approach. For them 9/11 was a glitch in the international order, albeit a substantial one, an event that should have merely brought retaliatory police action designed to re-establish an equilibrium. Realists were incapable of gauging the importance of ideas, of understanding that militant Islam is perilously eschatological in its ambitions. In their fixation on power, realists never see beyond the dry instruments increasing or lessening power.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Any new thug the realists prop up in Iraq will have us backing a Shiite persecution of the Sunnis. How realistic that? We’ll be on the side of Iranian hegemony.
laelaps on November 18, 2006 at 5:47 PM
Well, I sure don’t like the direction that the ‘realists’ (who are less actual realists than they are opportunists who will deal with the devil for profit today while ignoring that in the long term they are heading for hell) are going to take this.
IF President Bush’s original Middle east strategy had any chance of working, Iraq was the best place for it to take root. It might have actually worked to the great benefit of the entire world five-ten years down the road, had the left not impeded it at every step; but it is definitely doomed to failure now.
And now, ‘changing horses in the middle of a stream’ is going to make the sacrifices of our people in uniform and their families all a waste.
Better to have given it our best shot until the muslim culture proves beyond a doubt that it is beyond redemption than it is to just quit the game at halftime when you are up by a touchdown and a field goal, just because half the crowd in the stands is booing and the sports reporters have already turned in their articles declaring you the loser.
(Sorry for all the mixed metaphors)
LegendHasIt on November 18, 2006 at 5:56 PM
Don’t misunderestimate Bush, grasshopper. His bringing back Baker, Scowcroft, Kissinger, Woodrow Wilson, and the rest is just a diversion. It’s the same plan Reagan used to bring down the USSR without firing a shot. All the while he was negotiating SALT VIII and saying he could “work” with Gorbachev he was really staging fake SDI tests and feeding the KGB fake software for them to steal and use for that pipeline that blew up. That left them so panicked that they just surrendered to the first drunk mayor to point a gun. Look for Iran’s first test nuke explosion to make an even quieter popping sound than Nork’s.
pedestrian on November 18, 2006 at 6:30 PM
He is right about the “realists” and their perception of 9/11.
They saw it as a confirmation, if a tragic one, of preconceived notions. We saw it as a call to reevaluate our notions. And we have.
HerrMorgenholz on November 18, 2006 at 7:37 PM
HerrMorgenholz has it right.
The “realists” have no connection with reality.
georgej on November 19, 2006 at 7:22 AM
I think there is a comic difference between 17th century England and 9th century Islam.
The new Americans came from a civiization that was well advanced, 9th century Islam still exists.
A sovereign and independent (at least from tribal culture entities) sounds just as good now as it did in 1776.
Cheaper too.
Speakup on November 19, 2006 at 11:18 AM
I don’t know how many times that I’ve heard that Clinton did an excellent job of responding to the “93” Trade Center bombing… After all…a bunch of people went to jail.
And I always reply, ”If it had been enough, there would have been no second attack”.
The world is not ready for an effective solution to Jihadi terrorism. It may be too late for some countries, but we still have the ability to confront this disease… The lack of will is the problem. And if we return to a policy of responding to their attacks as law enforcement after the crime is committed situations, we’re done for it.
19 killed 3000… That is reality.
RalphyBoy on November 19, 2006 at 6:01 PM
Comment pages: