Self-validation from the old gang
Friday, August 31, 2007 at 3:16AM EDITORIAL: "Sarko Steps Up," Wall Street Journal, 29 August 2007, p. A14.
Sarko talks tough on Iran (he too is hot to threaten bombing to show how tough he is, never mind what a non-effect it would have on Iran's actual capabilities development), and Merkel is described as Bush-lite. Toss in Gordon Brown and all that "conventional wisdom" about the next president needing to make "various policy amends" is blown off.
The world is all turning more bullish on Bush's foreign policy!
Okay, just the usual Euro Big 3. They, plus America is all that's required to both run the world plus stand up to the authoritarian Rest.
Oh let me count up all the troops, because this strikes me as truly visionary!
As Sarkozy himself is quoted from last year, "I've always favored modest effectiveness over sterile grandiloquence."
Ah, thus the effectiveness of promising that Tehran's pursuit of nukes can end in only two ways: "Iran with the bomb or the bombing of Iran."
India suffers more terror attacks every year than any other country. Pakistan is clearly linked to the majority (I mean, they emanate from its territory as much as 9/11 emanated from Afghanistan), making Pakistan arguably the most terror-exporting nation on the planet. It's also given away nuke technology.
And it has the bomb.
Why not nuke Pakistan? Hmm. Maybe it's more complex than that, so we shelve the grandiloquence there.
And Israel's monopoly on WMD in the Middle East gets us what--exactly--in strategic stability for the region?
But, definitely, by all means, let's match Ahmadinejad's chest-beating rhetoric. It goes so well with our modest effectiveness.
Bush's accomplishments in effectively dividing the world along old lines is certainly impressive.
Too bad yesterday's fault lines don't address tomorrow's challenges.
America will need allies who go and do, not stand and talk. And we'll need them in serious numbers.
Reader Comments (2)
;)
You mention that India suffers the most terror attacks per year. I don't know where you got your data and maybe you're right. But if so, it only goes against your point. How many terror attacks did India suffer before Pakistan went nuclear? How emboldened has Pakistan become to sponsor attacks on India knowing its nuke arsenal immunizes it from retaliation? What response can India undertake? Once a regime goes nuclear, it basically is able to act in a much more agressive manner
For what it's worth, the US State Dept for the last 25+ years under administrations of both parties has listed Iran as the #1 state sponsor of terrorism. And that's without them having the bomb. Just imagine how they'd behave with the bomb? Just imagine how Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Syria, the EIJ, JI, and all the other Islamic terro groups would behave underan Iranian nuclear umbrella? I'd rather not.
Sarkozy was right. One of two outcomes will occur. Either Iran will go nuclear or Iran will not. He's saying that the West must come together to ensure through sanctions and diplomacy that the latter must not occur otherwise force will be used. You just disagree with his view of the desirability of a nuclear Iran. For him, it's unacceptable. For you, it isn't. You'd rather see Iran go nuclear than force be used to prevent it.
2)What strategic value has Israel been with a nuclear monoploy? For one thing, they've survived for 40+ years with it. From 1947-1973, there were 3 major wars where multiple Arab states sought to destroy Israel. The entire region was aflame, hundreds of thousand died, nuclear forces were on alert, oil embargoes were applied, Israel's existence hung in the balance. In the 35 years since 1973, none of that has happened. No major Arab-Israeli wars. No oil embargo. No nuclear alerts. Peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. No Syrian attacks across the Golan. You don't think Israel's nuclear monopoly has played a role in that? Along with the support of the US of course? We've gotten plenty of strategic stability out of Israel's nuclear monopoly. I could go on but I won't.