“ .... as the military historian Eliot Cohen was the first to recognize, the one we are now in has ideological roots, pitting us against Islamofascism, yet another mutation of the totalitarian disease we defeated first in the shape of Nazism and fascism and then in the shape of communism; it is global in scope ...” blah blah blah

Norm Podhoretz makes it sound so simple - It's good the he was the first to recognize that Elliot Cohen was the first to recognize whatevr.

Yet another mutation - “Yet another” yada yada yade, blah bla blah “yet another” blah blah blah “Elliot” blah blah blah.

One thing is funny is that Pod uses the Hitchens-conjured phrase “Islamofascism” without attribution. That's a double victory for Hitch because that means he created a semi-mainstream meme and he got Podhortez to use it and Podhoretz was once one of his biggest targets for ridicule. The word “Islamofascism” will not last - It's not accurate and it slanders both Muslims and fascists with some lazy agitprop. It was just a clever ditty Hitch composed to try to maintain his leftist creds when he went whole hog for his piggy war.

“Since a ground invasion of Iran must be ruled out for many different reasons, the job would have to be done, if it is to be done at all, by a campaign of air strikes. Furthermore, because Iran's nuclear facilities are dispersed, and because some of them are underground, many sorties and bunker-busting munitions would be required. And because such a campaign is beyond the capabilities of Israel, and the will, let alone the courage, of any of our other allies, it could be carried out only by the United States. Even then, we would probably be unable to get at all the underground facilities, which means that, if Iran were still intent on going nuclear, it would not have to start over again from scratch. But a bombing campaign would without question set back its nuclear program for years to come, and might even lead to the overthrow of the mullahs.”

He and Kondracke should take a show on the road.

“a bombing campaign ... might even lead to the overthrow of the mullahs.”

Wow. That's literally the stupidest thing I've seen this year. 'Cuz we all know that the best way to separate a people from their religious leaders is to have a large powerful outsider attack.

Wow. How can y'all stand the stupidity?

Alex - maybe not so stupid if you consider the possibility that Podhoretz knows that bombing Iran will rally their population against ours - That would be an “error,” but he would be a 'hero in error' for helping to set the fuse for serious war and to spark it up.

Lately Pod and some of the others are starting a new trend of being very bold in their advocacy of the what we'd call The Tojo Option (as opposed to The Churchill Option ,which is withdrawl from Iraq.).

Interesting. So to paraphrase, even more lies to drum up support for an even dumber war than Iraq?

I wonder if the Pod is perhaps misreading the situation badly. The only way he gets a real war with Iran is with the draft. I think if that happens Republicans might be out of power for a generation. Or is my political sense askew?

Could you clarify what you meant by the Tojo Option? A sort of US-headed Greater Middle Eastern Co-Prosperity Sphere? Or something darker, mirroring Japanese treatment of pretty much everybody before and during the war.

Who knows - but the way we see it, Podhoretz can't lose = There is no downside to him advocating a sneak attack. If the attack works as advertised then he's a genius, but if it leads to humiliation and an American tactical defeat, then that defeat wiil be so intolerable to so many Americans that it motivate America to fully get its game face on and start kicking ass im a way he'd find meaningful and satisfying.

By Tojo Option we were alluding to RFK counseling JFK to reject the advice of many who advocated an attack on Cuba during the missle crisis = Now we know (or so we are told) that had such an attack occured the USSR would have used tactical nukes in defense of the island. Anyway, RFK supposedly said back then that he did't want JFK to be the new Tojo - ie he didn't want him to imitate the sneak attack policy (ie Japan's attack on pearl harbor) what we had condenmed Japan for just a while back.
So we just meant the Tojo Option was to adopt a policy of sneak attack on perceived threats.

It seems that Pod's goal is conflict with Iran - The conflict is the end, not the means to an end. He believes in the conflict as its own end. So you can't appply traditional win/lose criteria to his idea or plans. What counts is the conflict - For example, Gen. Shinseki's technically 'correct' estimates for troops needed in Iraq was actually the wrong number (or pre-maturely right) if you're Norm because it served to dissuade voters and Congress from supporting a new war. So the 'wrong' estimates are the right estimates and the fact that Bush is stuck in Iraq now is also a victory for Norm because Bush's options are increasingly limited and Conress is forced to either support a war they (most) oppose (creating politically useful anxiety and insincerity) or to become seen as unsupportive of the troops by casual observers.
Traditional win or lose analysis does not apply - what counts is what advances or does not advance the policy of war and conflict - Conflict is the goal, not the means. Did we win? Did we lose? Did it cost too much? Did we suffer too many casualties? Did too many innocents die? Did it offent the allies? For Norm, they are all bourgsois questions - The miss the point. What counts is whether or not war becomes more likely, rather than less likely.

This opinion piece is one for the books. For example, it's a myth that the UK no longer teaches about the
holocaust. Not much of a fact-checker, is he?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/...

Also, he talks of the possibility of Ahmadinejad getting the bomb. I daresay the Mullahs wouldn't let him within ten miles of the button.

In two places he mentions the 'Israel wiped off the map' quote attributed to Ahmadinejad. At this site it analyzes the actual words and postits it is more accurately translated as “The Imam [Khomeini] said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”

http://www.mohammadmossadeg...

The action figures? Me no likie. They look like the creepy toys from 'Toy Story' that the mean boy next door assembled with heads from his sister's dolls, etc.

Doc must despair of my pedestrian tastes, eh, Comment?

Correct us if we are wrong, but Norm has spoken and/or written about the supposedly positive attribute of war - for purposes other than defense or foreign policy - He has written about the importance of countering images of weakness like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watc...

And this:

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Thanks for that, Aldershot. I hadn't seen that non-fight video. I am Canadian, so that certainly resonates with me.

Just for fun, I will analyze US foreign policy using hockey enforcer ethics.

(Just to be clear, “you” in the following means US foreign policy under Bush 2 and others, not any of the commenters here.)

By Georges Laraque's standards, you guys are cheap-ass punks. You never drop your gloves, you just start throwing. Even though you're the biggest guy in the league, you pick fights with the small guys. You duck the other enforcers. (Oh pretty please, can we have our spy plane back?)

You whine in the newspapers. You talk big, but most of it is hot air. You try to game the refs. You exaggerate your past fights. You complain about cheap shots, yet are a cheap shot artist.

Believe it or not, I am actually for the most part a fan of your formerly-much-greater nation. I think we are good foils for each other.

I fear, though, that if the Pod gets his way, the consequences for everybody, except perhaps China and Russia, are dire.

Did I say resonates? I must be drunk.

Yes, Alex, we're cheap-ass punks. The problem is that we've been overtaken by technology, and consequently, big business. The birth of the Cold War, spawned by greed and paranoia, was the beginning of the end.

Attacking Iran? I fail to see how interrupting the Iranian oil supply can lead to anything but disaster.

“One of the writers whose courage and polemical force I highly admire is Christopher Hitchens. He gives frequent proof of a passionate honesty, which sometimes has obliged him to criticize ideological soul mates when he thinks they are wrong on some important matter. Many of our colleagues today pretend publicly to have no enemies on the Left out of a panicky fear that they might “help the wrong people” on the evil Right. Though always a man of the Left, Hitchens will have none of that ... Withal, he is a brave and good man — and an excellent man (so others tell me) to have a drink with. -
Normally, too, Hitchens is a fair man in debate — although employing often enough those wicked and withering rhetorical ploys that the British often display in verbal jousting.”
~Michael Novak 5-17-07
(irony unintended)

<i>The problem is that we've been overtaken by technology, and consequently, big business. The birth of the Cold War, spawned by greed and paranoia, was the beginning of the end.</i>

I'd have to agree with that. I find it interesting that Ike, who has been praised a fair bit lately on the interwebs, both cautioned against the military industrial complex, and was (as far as I know) the impetus behind replacing the French and UK in the Middle East. That turned out to not be such a great idea.

This is probably a good place to ask: What's a good biography on Eisenhower?

To go back to Comment's first post, I think the term “Islamofascism” is unfortunately here to stay. Its too useful to that segment of blatherers. Did you catch the recent invasion of LGFers at Unqualified Offerings?

I know such views exist, but it's a bit of a shock to see them expressed. The whole Dhimmitude/Caliphate thing is beyond merely wacky.

We just heard Frank Gaffney on c-span defending the term “Islamofascism” as his way of sticking up for moderate Muslims against Islamists/Grover Norquist

It occurs to me that the term might be useful as a way to distinguish Islamic fascism from the usual, everyday Christian fascism.

Just because:

http://www.dannychoo.com/bl...

I spend all my time in the left blogosphere, but when I rarely follow a link to a site like Red State, or worse, it's amazing to see the talking points from Fox, etc., parroted. Limbaugh is an utter tool. So all I usually hear is the word 'Islamist' which I think is fitting.

(No, I can't recommend a book on Ike.)