-
I Try to Explain Debt on CBN News
May 23, 2012 | 13 comments
-
More on Wright
May 21, 2012 | 17 comments
-
Missing the Point on Rev. Wright
May 21, 2012 | 10 comments
-
Exorcise DeGioia and Company From Georgetown
May 19, 2012 | 23 comments
-
McMorris Rodgers Gains Attention
May 19, 2012 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Daniel Larison is an oft-trenchant observer, but he and I always seem to disagree on foreign policy. The other day he took me to task for saying that Rick Santorum has at least a little momentum after the Iowa straw poll, but mostly spent time criticizing Santorum's foreign policy. I won't belabor the issue of whether President Bush 43's policies in the Mid-East and Afghanistan were "disastrous" -- I think they were a mix of success and failure -- but I do want to point out this sort of strange line from Larison:
Santorum's statements last Thursday were typical of someone hostile to Iranian national interests, but one who nonetheless insists on presenting himself as a friend of the Iranian people. He insisted that "Iran is a country that must be confronted."
Larison clearly means this as a slam on Santorum. But how, pray tell, is it wrong for Santorum to present himself as a friend of the Iranian people while opposing its murderous regime? Hell, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of the Iranian people tried to rise up against that same murderous regime not too long ago, specifically because that regime itself is anything but a friend to its own subjects. In response, the regime murdered many of the protesters, while Barack Obama sat and watched.
Yes, Iran is indeed a country that must be confronted. And yes, one can oppose the regime while befriending the people. Indeed, to say that one is doing both is almost redundant. For many years now there has been a very sizable percentage in Iran, especially among younger Iranians, who admire the West and yearn for freedom. Santorum is right to want to help them achieve that freedom, while sending Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and some of the extremist mullahs to their eternal rest amidst 72 malevolent and demonic succubi.
View all comments (9) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/08/16/larison-takes-issue-with-me
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
Special Feature
Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:
FLASHBACK TO: 1984
-
The Fairness Delusion
The speech our President should make.
-
Media Smears: One Man’s Experiences
A noted economist fires back.
-
Chuck Colson vs. The Fundamentalists
How political can you get?
-
The Reagan Doctrine
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
-
The Woman Problem
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Kingofthenet| 8.16.11 @ 12:06PM
I REALLY need some succubi...
MOS was 71331| 8.16.11 @ 12:25PM
I had to look the word (succubi) up, and, now that I know what it means, I can only hope that one visiting me is clumsy and wakes me up.
JimH| 8.16.11 @ 12:43PM
If I got this right, you want to hope that you are on the right side of the world otherwise your succubus becomes an incubus.
Red Phillips| 8.16.11 @ 12:48PM
Larison is a non-interventionist. His comments regarding Santorum, who has been one of the if not the most alarmist in exagerating the threats against us, should be interpreted in that light.
But Quin you are making the same mistake the Bush administration made with Iraq. We were told that the Iraqi people would welcome us with open arms. We were told the invasion would be a "cake walk."
Well of course it didn't work out that way as us non-interventionist conservatives warned. Many people in Iran may not like their government and may want more freedom, but it does not follow that they will respond well to a foreign power attempting to "free" them with bullets and bombs. They will respond to us as foreign invaders.
The idea that we can invade a country and "free" it and the people are all supposed to send us a thank you note is hopelessly naive and fundamentally misunderstands human nature. The conception of America as liberator is a simple-minded morality tale that ignores realities on the ground. (In Iraq for example it ingnored the Sunni, Shiite, Kurd issue).
It is because these issues are complicated and not easily reduced to good freedom fighters vs. bad dictators that we should leave well enough alone.
Cfountain72| 8.16.11 @ 2:00PM
I was going to jump in, but Red beat me too it. Very well said!
Peace be with you.
Dai Alanye| 8.16.11 @ 10:36PM
I consider the Red Phillips analysis simplistic and inaccurate. But never mind that.
The appropriate first step in "confronting" Iran would be to recognize a government in exile. It's certain we'd have no trouble finding Iranians, Kurds and Aziris eager to sign on. Then let the native Whigs and Tories sort it out.
Smirking Weasel| 8.16.11 @ 1:23PM
The 'Iranian people' are irrelevant to the U.S., and its' interests.
The only confronting we need to do with Iran is to point at it-'it' including its' 'people' as well as Mahkmoooooed, etc.-and laugh. And then telling them they're disgusting Muslims, aka, the failures of humanity, and that we want nothing to do with them.
Oldefarte| 8.16.11 @ 2:08PM
This subject to me is exemplified by Ron Paul's non-interventionialist politics, of which I both partially agree and disagree with. This country has become involved in various matters/disputes involving foriegn nations throughout history; and the question becomes should the US interject itself into these occurances? IMO [now], only if this nation has a vital national interest at stake in same. In the middle east, there is none to my knowledge [other than possibly the supply of oil]. After 9/11/01, our retaliation was obviously warranted after being attacked unnecessarily, but the means used was political correct as applied. We should have, instead of beginning a land war with our army, simply NIGASAKIED/HIROSHIMAED [which brought an end to WWII and the Japanese to the negotiating table] the deserts of the middle east [and thereafter warned these Arab countries and their Muslim terrorists never to attempt another 9/11/01 against our citizens ever again]. Other countries do not get involved in wars etc through infiltration and never have done so. Only the US and Russia etc as so-cllaed super-powers do such. Has our diplomatic/militaristic efforts throughout history been to our benefit? I say NO! Once the last US military soldier leaves the middle east, will the Muslim terrorists walk into the vacated space and politically take over? Absolutely YES!!!!!!!!
Purple Lips| 8.16.11 @ 3:57PM
One of the least publicized aspects of the Cold War was Radio Free Europe. The reason the Wall came down without a shot fired was the simple fact that those living behind it knew that they had friends in the Free World (Pope John Paul, Margret Thatcher, Helmut Kohl, and of course Ronald Reagan). Since then, either self loathing (we are too sinful to question the Mullahs), multi-culti rot (Who are we to question foreign dictators when we have 10% unemployment. Are we any better?), or dis-interest (or laziness) keeps us from using "soft-power". Sanotorum never said anything about invading Iran. And it costs us nothing to let the oppressed people in Iran know we are on thier side, and not the mullahs.