The Myth Of Containment
Hugh Hewitt has a post up asking when the Senate is going to start having a real debate about our policy toward Iran and Syria. Starting from a column by George Will, Hewitt points out why certain policies cannot work.
Will is so engaged in harumpphing about the Weekly Standard neocons –he denounces their "radicalism"– that he confuses the situation today with that of post-war Europe rather than pre-war Europe. Stalin could be deterred from the use of nukes (though never proxies). Hitler could be deterred from nothing because of his messianism, a messianism he shares with Ahmadinejad along with a hatred for Jews.
Will's indifference to this unrestrained evil, his casual assumption that "containment" will work with Iran is the sort of gambling associated with the left, but not with President Reagan, to whom George Will often turns when the going gets tough. Nor would Reagan have ignored the fruits of the Iraq war –including the disarmament of Libya and the freedom of the Iraq people, however difficult its birth– from a homicidal maniac.
Will's dropped out, then, of the Reaganite GOP when it comes to foreign policy –"We win. They lose."– and others may as well. The Buchanan caucus welcomes him and them.
But I don't believe a majority of the American electorate will agree on a "wait and see/do nothing" foreign policy, dressed up in U.N. half-resolutions.
Only some of the most Clueproof™ actually think containment was working with Saddam Hussein. The bloated and corrupt UN made sure there were plenty of holes in the sanctions so Saddam could get what he wanted on the world market. The futility of the idea of containment when you are dealing with rogue states should also be evident from how well the Clinton White House's containment worked with North Korea.
A foreign policy based upon the reality of the Iranian regime does not mean a war with it or Syria, though neither would war be ruled out. But it certainly wouldn't indulge in the fantasies that characterized Stanley Baldwin and his followers. The very first step is clarity about the nature of the enemy.
The "evil empire" is gone, but the "axis of evil" is only partly dismembered. Pretending that "containment" might work in the long run is political posturing.
I think there are too many people who want to indulge in the wishful thinking of containment despite the evidence to the contrary. I've said many times before, if the world does not pull together, war becomes more likely, not less.
Blogosphere, Iran, War | Gaius Tuesday, 18 July , 2006
By TJM, Tuesday, 18 July , 2006 @ 8:08 pm
Right,and that’s why GWB,in seeking to dismantle the axis of evil,started with the weakest of the 3 when the US military was its strongest. Besides being ass backwards in the initial approach,he then followed up by forgetting to plan for the post-war period. Which,of course,resulted in an extended and deleterious occupation of Iraq,instead of moving on to the next target.
No,I think it’s pretty clear that the only clueless people in this equation are those in the White House.
By Gaius, Tuesday, 18 July , 2006 @ 8:12 pm
AH, so you’d support a war against Iran or North Korea, then.
By Roland Hesz, Wednesday, 19 July , 2006 @ 5:25 am
If you look at history, was looks more likely whatever you do.
In fact, has you seen even one year without war?
I don’t know if the world will “pull together”.
Not even countries pull together.
Just look at the US - Iraq relations, before the First Gulf war.
Iraq was supplied by the US and sanctioned by the US.
The same with the UN.
Money talks…
For a while we will pay the price for the actions US and the USSR - both has armed, trained, supplied his current enemies in the past.
They turned out to be unreliable allies and servants.