Jed: To the first point, that Corner post was definitely the first time Rich used the term “‘to hell with them’ hawks.” Buckley probably had something to do with it, but since I can’t read Rich’s mind and he didn’t mention Buckley in the piece, I can’t say for sure. Buckley might fit the “‘to hell with them’ hawk” description, though I’m not sure he’s even written on every topic that I noted by letter, let alone that he believes what “‘to hell with them’ hawks” are said to believe. The same goes for other NR-niks, like Andrew McCarthy and Jeffrey Hart, who seem to tend in the to-hell-with-them direction. That was my point: The NR cover story is written too much like there’s a group of people who have signed on to a particular manifesto of positions.
To the second point: What do you consider a significant attack? Does 9/11 qualify? You don’t really need state support to kill a few thousand infidels these days. Terrorism is just too easy. The relationship between Middle Eastern regimes and the radicalism they breed is much more complicated than a head/body metaphor implies. We’re not threatened by a single organism — more like an ecosystem.
To the third point: I don’t think that this is a threat that can be truly dealt with quickly. If you’re asking about cases where short-term progress against regimes seems to conflict with long-term progress toward political reform, we’ve just got to weigh costs and benefits on a case by case basis. On Iran, though I do have some sympathy for Robert Kagan’s position, I honestly haven’t made up my mind.
I look forward to your more full response.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.