Appetite For Destruction: Neoconservative Guns and Poses
Adam Elkus, Electronic Iraq, 17 July 2006
As the violence in both Gaza and Lebanon rages out of control, the apocalyptic and nihilistic urges of prominent neoconservatives such as Michael Ledeen, David Horowitz, and William Kristol has finally surfaced in full public view. They cheer on the increasing destruction and advocate for United States intervention against Syria and Iran, whom they view as the real powers behind Hezbollah and Hamas provocations against Israel.
Human Events' Joel Mowbray reports that Israel faces a "two-front" war against a common enemy, because "both Hamas and Hezbollah are funded by Iran, leaders for both receive sanctuary in Syria, and both have a common goal: elimination of the Jews and the establishment of an Islamic state."
In the American Spectator, Ben Stein calls for Israel to bomb Iran, wonders how "any American Jew could even consider not supporting Bush," who expressed support for Israel. Stein compares Israel's Arab enemies to Hitler, Eichmann, and Stalin, and states their "wickedness" cannot be redeemed or rehabilitated. Michael Ledeen of the National Review declares, "No one should have any lingering doubts about what's going on in the Middle East. It's war, and it now runs from Gaza into Israel, through Lebanon and thence to Iraq via Syria."
Finally, with his usual subtlety, David Horowitz announces that the "war in the Middle East is a war for civilization." The combatants of this war, Horowitz declares, are Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran, their "allies" Russia, France, Greece, and the "UN majority" versus the "only democracy in the middle East." He goes on to state that a "civilized occupying force" is necessary to contain "genocidal" Palestinians and declares that "The world will not be a safe place or a decent one until the present regimes in Gaza, the West Bank, Syria and Iran are gone."
It's easy to point out the disturbing neo-colonial nature of Horowitz's rhetoric. If this really is a "war for civilization," and if a "civilized occupying force" is really needed, then one must assume that the Israelis and the Americans are the civilized, and the Arabs are irrational, murderous, and deceitful savages who only understand the language of the assault rifle.
While everyone else across the political spectrum is panicking over the escalating violence, Horowitz and his ilk cackle like witches, rubbing their palms together and fervently wishing for the fires of war to consume the entire Middle East. This is the real war that they wanted, a storm that will topple the regimes of Syria and Iran, cow the Palestinians, and make the rest of the Arabs quiver with fear. Ledeen himself criticized former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcraft's anti-war remarks in 2002 by saying "One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today."
Not surprisingly, the neoconservatives openly advocate that America join the growing conflict. Horowitz declares that "this is a war all Americans should support." Weekly Standard founder William Kristol forcefully advocates attacks on Iran:
What's under attack [in the Middle East] is liberal democratic civilization, whose leading representative right now happens to be the United States. ... [T]he right response is renewed strength ... standing with Israel [and] pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran ... [W]e might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.
Ledeen compared the situation to 1938 Munich:
Is this not the time to go after the terrorist training camps in Syria and Iran? What in the world are we waiting for? ... f we dither through this one, the next one will be worse. ... Stability is a mirage. Chamberlain had a choice between dishonor and war. He chose dishonor and got war anyway.
No mention is made of the fact that the U.S. is bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan and struggling to deal with nuclear crises in Iran and North Korea. But realism has never been a neoconservative strength.
Neoconservatives were supposed to have their grand war in Iraq; witness the frequent invocations that we were in a "war" as long and vast as the Cold War and as ideologically pure a match-up as World War II. However, the grim failure to pacify Iraq dashed neoconservative hopes for "regime change" in Syria and Iran. But now another opportunity arises, and the armchair warriors can barely conceal their glee.
Ironically, calls for a massive war against an organized, monolithic evil enemy mirrors the rhetoric of the very Islamic terrorists Horowitz hates. Bin Laden has been attempting for years to rally the world's Muslims against a perceived American-Israeli threat whose tentacles reach not only into Iraq and Palestine but every place Muslims are oppressed. Both Horowitz and Bin Laden wish for a war that will transform the Middle East. Bin Laden hopes that this war will lead to the overthrow of the Arab monarchies and dictatorships, the destruction of Israel, and the establishment of Islamic states. Horowitz and his fellow neoconservatives want to overthrow the governments of Iran and Syria, and create a Westernized Middle East that exists in a state of political and cultural submission.
But neoconservatives are blind to the reality of the situation: the invasion of Lebanon and the crackdown in Gaza is a massive overreaction by Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert. Few states would react to terrorist groups kidnapping its soldiers in the way Israel has. Imagine if Al-Qaeda attacked us in Iraq and the Taliban struck in Afghanistan, kidnapping several of our soldiers. Would we attack Saudi Arabia, where Al-Qaeda is bankrolled? Would there be armored legions streaming into Pakistan, the place where the Taliban originated, and may be still supported by elements of the Pakistani military?
As many commentators have noted, the war threatens to destroy the rotting remnants of the Oslo agreement, disrupt the already tenuous balance of a Middle East plagued by crisis in Iraq and Iran, depress the stock market and make oil prices skyrocket, expose the West to more terror attacks from disaffected Muslims, provoke Shiite militias to attack American troops in Iraq, and endanger Israeli civilians to terrorist retaliation both from within and without. And all to rescue a few soldiers whose freedom could have been obtained through diplomacy.
As bad as this conflict may be, it pales in comparison to what would happen if the Bush administration extended beyond Iraq by attacking Syria and Iran. Let Kristol, Horowitz, Ledeen, Stein, and Mowbray defend "civilization" themselves, in real life, not the World War II fantasy world that they live in, where tin-pot dictators are the Axis powers, Olmert is Winston Churchill, and George W. Bush is FDR with a twang.
Adam Elkus is a freelance writer living in California.
