John: Your piece
deserves a more full response, and I will do that in the course of
the next couple of days. But three points need to be made
today.
First, Rich's piece came not as a result of Derbyshire's Corner
post, but because of a column written by Bill Buckley in which he
proclaimed the war in Iraq lost and our goals there unachieved.
Rich had to put NR back on the right side, and this is his way of
doing attempting that.
Second, you say that radical Islam is the problem and that
nation-states only exacerbate it. I believe you are dead bang
wrong. Radical Islam is the ideology that cannot last without --
and stands in the way of democracy only as long as it gets support
from nations. Without support from Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria,
radical Islam would not be able to mount significant attacks
outside the Middle East. State funding, training and above all
sanctuary for the radical imams and their followers is absolutely
essential to large terrorist operations. If you shoot the head,
the body dies.
Third, even if democracy were achievable in these nations, how
can it be a solution in time to deal with the threat? Wilsonian
export of democracy will take decades if not centuries and (despite
the progress you cite in places such as Saudi, which is not
significant in any respect) will require a huge commitment like the
British had in India. You really want to wait that long before
doing something about the Iran nuclear weapons program? I hope
not.
topics:
Islam, Iraq, Iran, Nuclear Weapons
