The Lamont win shows where the Democrats are headed. Like Charles Lindbergh’s America Firsters before World War II, the Democrats will read Ned Lamont’s victory over hawkish Joe Lieberman as a sign that isolationism and appeasement are the way to stay out of those foreign wars. The problem with that theory is that in this age of globalization and interconnectedness, there really aren’t many truly foreign wars left. They will increasingly end up right here, either in the rising price of oil or in actual attacks against us.

The radicalizing Islamic world, which is lining up behind Iran and its proxy Hezbollah, suggests isolationism endangers our allies and appeasement is impossible. That in mind, here are two articles worth your time today.

John Batchelor: Prelude to War.

Stanley Kurtz: Hawkish Gloom.

Why so gloomy? Read this article.

UK’s top Muslim policeman warns of Islamophobia. In it, we see the UK holding itself hostage to the “moderate” Muslim Council of Britain (slogan: “Working for the Common Good”), which argues through the top UK Muslim cop that even after the 7/7 bombings, the cartoon jihad “behead” placards on the streets of London, Richard Reid et al, there’s really no reason to suspect that young Muslim males might be more likely to engage in terrorism. And we also read the veiled threat from that same moderate council–that scrutinizing young Muslim males who are otherwise docile and happy subjects of the crown will radicalize them. It’s very much a damned if you don’t, and more damned if you do situation. But for Tony Blair’s leadership (which ends in a year), Britain’s Labour party would toe the Council’s line whenever and wherever asked. The Tories aren’t much better.

Right here in this country, under threat from Hezbollah and its masters in Tehran, Islamic groups have leaped to pre-empt the FBI’s investigation into Hezbollah’s activities here. They want a sensitive investigation. You can bet they already have the lawyers lined up, not to root out terrorists in their own midst, but to keep the FBI from finding out too much.

To answer John Batchelor’s question–why is the US waiting for Iran to attack us?–because we don’t know what else to do. After five years of fighting a couple of low-intensity insurgencies we’re too tired to fight a real war. We think our military is on the verge of collapse when it isn’t, and no one has the guts to tell the country what the dangers are and what’s really at stake. Culturally, we’re too divided and too many are attracted to the “peace now” mantra that it will take a shock worse than 9-11 to make us battle ready. And since a sizable portion of the electorate will blame Bush even after the mullahs strike us directly, there is no shock big enough to unify us.

Whoever we fight, wherever we fight them, we will fight them with serious and probably unhealable divisions in our own ranks.