Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

Charles Krauthammer can’t help himself. He is a desperate man. Like Pavlov’s dog he cannot help lapping at Hitler’s corpse when presented with the opportunity. Krauthammer, like a good neo-conservative soldier, throws everything including the kitchen sink at Iran. Krauthammer wants to attack Iran like he wanted to attack Iraq. He wants the United States Government to feed his bloodlust by attacking Iran. He wants the citizens to fall in line by exploiting the memory of the Holocaust and using it as an emotional hammer to bludgeon us into submission.

Charles Krauthammer is a deeply cynical dangerous warmonger. He paints the picture of Jewish suffering and the attempted annihilation of Jews by Hitler:

For 2,000 years, Jews found protection in dispersion — protection not for individual communities, which were routinely persecuted and massacred, but protection for the Jewish people as a whole. Decimated here, they could survive there. They could be persecuted in Spain and find refuge in Constantinople. They could be massacred in the Rhineland during the Crusades or in the Ukraine during the Khmelnytsky Insurrection of 1648-49 and yet survive in the rest of Europe.

Hitler put an end to that illusion. He demonstrated that modern anti-Semitism married to modern technology — railroads, disciplined bureaucracies, gas chambers that kill with industrial efficiency — could take a scattered people and "concentrate" them for annihilation.

Then he applies the emotional coup de grâce:

His successors now reside in Tehran. The world has paid ample attention to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s declaration that Israel must be destroyed. Less attention has been paid to Iranian leaders’ pronouncements on exactly how Israel would be "eliminated by one storm," as Ahmadinejad has promised.

He wants us to dispense with reason and follow him down his cynical journey:

As it races to acquire nuclear weapons, Iran makes clear that if there is any trouble, the Jews will be the first to suffer. "We have announced that wherever [in Iran] America does make any mischief, the first place we target will be Israel," said Gen. Mohammad Ebrahim Dehghani, a top Revolutionary Guards commander. Hitler was only slightly more direct when he announced seven months before invading Poland that, if there was another war, "the result will be . . . the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe."

Until finally we are in a box of his making and overcome with emotion we shout to the world, "Never again!":

When Iran’s mullahs acquire their coveted nukes in the next few years, the number of Jews in Israel will just be reaching 6 million. Never again?

I would have some empathy for Krauthammer and may have been duped into believing that his argument might be heartfelt save some inconvenient history. Krauthammer and his cohorts have dragged around the corpse of Hitler whenever it suited them. They are always tilting at the corpse of Hitler whenever they want to aim the immense military might of the United States at their chosen foe.

So it was with Saddam before we were misled into attacking Iraq:

Former CIA Director James Woolsey warns that Saddam Hussein "poses the same kind of threat to the United States that Hitler posed in Germany in the mid 1930s when the British and the French kept postponing dealing with him in the way that some people are advocating dealing with Saddam how."

The corpse of Hitler also comes to the rescue whenever we need to bash Hugo Chavez:

"I mean, we’ve got Chavez in Venezuela with a lot of oil money," Rumsfeld added. "He’s a person who was elected legally _ just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally _ and then consolidated power and now is, of course, working closely with Fidel Castro and Mr. Morales and others."

And now this nation’s tired guns are being pointed at Iran. Krauthammer tag teams with William Kristol and others in pulling the corpse of Hitler through the American town square. They scream, "Never again! Never again!" and they want us to join in on the chant.

The trotting out of Hitler to justify another first strike by the United States is so without merit that it really does not warrant a substantive rebuttal. It merits only ridicule. That and the obvious observation that if Israel so chooses it could wipe Iran off the map with a massive nuclear strike.

Krauthammer and his cohorts are desperate to go for the trifecta before their time in power runs out. With Iraq dispatched they have their sights on Iran and Syria. I hope the American people will not be fooled again. We should meet these baseless and cynical attempts at fear mongering and collectively shout at Krauthammer and the neo-conservative fanatics that we will not be fooled again. We should collectively shout: "Never Again!"

I find it surprising that Charles Krauthammer’s music library includes Wham! However, I do not find it surprising that Krauthammer’s latest column in The Washington Post would add to the orchestrated defense of Donald Rumsfeld and Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy. His column comes on the heels of an opinion piece in the Post by Melvin Laird and Robert Pursley that makes the same argument. [Aside: Melvin Laird is the architect of "Vietnamization" so the Administration mantra "We will stand down when the Iraqis stand up" should give him Goosebumps since Vietnamization worked out so well]

You cannot blame Krauthammer (and Laird) for shooting the messenger, after all, the message is hard to discount. Krauthammer sees a danger to our Republic. He sees a collapse of civilian control over the military. He sees a military takeover of the United States.

I-know-better generals are back. Six of them, retired, are denouncing the Bush administration and calling for Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation as secretary of defense. The antiwar types think this is just swell.

…

We’ve always had discontented officers in every war and in every period of our history. But they rarely coalesce into factions. That happens in places such as Hussein’s Iraq, Pinochet’s Chile or your run-of-the-mill banana republic. And when it does, outsiders (including the United States) do their best to exploit it, seeking out the dissident factions to either stage a coup or force the government to change policy.

….

It is precisely this kind of division that our tradition of military deference to democratically elected civilian superiors was meant to prevent. Today it suits the antiwar left to applaud the rupture of that tradition. But it is a disturbing and very dangerous precedent that even the left will one day regret.

Charles, Charles, Charles. Calm down and breathe into the brown paper bag. I would share your alarm but I have not been able to find a good way to detach my brain from my skull and still function as a human being. But fear not you have many who will carry the water with you.

Let me take it from the top:

1. Not withstanding the last holdout, American policy in Iraq has been a disaster.
2. We were lied or bumbled (no practical difference) into this preemptive war by this Administration.
3. We failed to take any steps to plan for a post-conflict peace. We have reigned over chaos since 2003.
4. We have handed Iraq on a silver platter to Iran.
5. We have put in power in Iraq the same group of people that killed 241 marines in Beirut in 1983.
6. We have no exit strategy in Iraq other than to say, "Stay the course" or "We will stand down when the Iraqis stand up".
7. We have lost over 2000 American lives and at least 30,000 Iraqi lives.
8. Civil war rages in Iraq with ethnic cleansing at its core.
9. We have been taken to war on the backs of two ideologies. That of the neo-cons like Mr. Krauthammer who argue for Pax Americana at the barrel of a gun; and that of Mr. Rumsfeld that is bent on proving his concept of a light and agile military is superior, facts or circumstances be damned.

According to the latest Fox News poll only 33% of Americans approve of how President Bush is handling his job. Of those who disapprove, the most frequently cited reason is the debacle in Iraq. In this environment, does this surprise you, Charles, that retired generals would also disapprove of our Iraq policy. The public is well ahead of the military on this one - as they should be. Krauthammer argues rather disingenuously that the generals should have spoken out while on active duty:

Some of the complainers were on active duty when these decisions were made. If they felt so strongly about Rumsfeld’s disregard of their advice, why didn’t they resign at the time? Why did they wait to do so from the safety of retirement, with their pensions secured?

Nice one Charles, but by your own thesis, didn’t the generals do what they should have done. While on active duty, they accepted the civilian control of the military, registered their complaints, saluted and followed orders. I applaud them for that - as should you, Charles. I think our Republic is safe from a military takeover precisely because our men and women in the military are a disciplined group of people who understand and respect the Constitution of the United States.

Of course, when all other arguments fail the fallback argument is always that dissent aids the enemy. Laird and Pursley conclude with this:

In speaking out now, they may think they are doing a service by adding to the reasoned debate. But the enemy does not understand or appreciate reasoned public debate. It is perceived as a sign of weakness and lack of resolve.

The real enemy is sitting in some cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan laughing at us for our fiasco in Iraq. When the majority of the public think the country is being mismanaged and when retired generals speak out, it is time to take heed. Attempting to dismiss legitimate criticism by suggesting that it is aiding and abetting the enemy is the same mindset and groupthink that got us embroiled in this mess in Iraq in the first place.

The details of my life are quite inconsequential… very well, where do I begin? My father was a relentlessly self-improving boulangerie owner from Belgium with low grade narcolepsy and a penchant for buggery. My mother was a fifteen year old French prostitute named Chloe with webbed feet. My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. My childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we’d make meat helmets. When I was insolent I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds- pretty standard really. At the age of twelve I received my first scribe. At the age of fourteen a Zoroastrian named Vilma ritualistically shaved my testicles. There really is nothing like a shorn scrotum… it’s breathtaking- I highly suggest you try it.
- Dr. Evil (Austin Powers - International Man of Mystery)

I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
- General Jack D. Ripper (Dr. Strangelove)

Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk… ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children’s ice cream.
- General Jack D. Ripper (Dr. Strangelove)

Yes, uh, a profound sense of fatigue… a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I… I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.
- General Jack D. Ripper (Dr. Strangelove)

No, it’s not what you think. It’s much, much worse!
- Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

I could never find time for love–too heavy–it’s an anchor that drowns a man. Besides, I’ve got the sky, the smell of jet exhaust, my bike.
- Topper Hurley (Hot Shots!)

 It’s a man, baby!
- Austin Powers (Austin Powers - International Man of Mystery)

Oh, you’re right. And when you’re right, you’re right. And you - you’re always right.
- Barf (Spaceballs)

That was my virgin-alarm. It’s programmed to go off before you do!
- Dot Matrix (Spaceballs)

Oh, my God. It’s Mega Maid. She’s gone from suck to blow.
- Colonel Sandurz (Spaceballs)

Prepare ship for ludicrous speed! Fasten all seatbelts, seal all entrances and exits, close all shops in the mall, cancel the three ring circus, secure all animals in the zoo!
- Colonel Sandurz (Spaceballs)

Do you know what it’s like to fall in the mud and get kicked… in the head… with an iron boot? Of course you don’t, no one does. It never happens. It’s a dumb question… skip it.
- Rex Kramer (Airplane!)

I look out there at all you wonderful guys and I say to myself, "what I wouldn’t give to be twenty years younger . . . and a woman."
- Admiral Benson (Hot Shots!)

Let me tell you a little story about a man named Sh! Sh! even before you start. That was a pre-emptive "sh!" Now, I have a whole bag of "sh!" with your name on it.
- Dr. Evil (Austin Powers - International Man of Mystery)

Well, I, uh, don’t think it’s quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up, sir.
- General "Buck" Turgidson (Dr. Strangelove) 

Mr. President, I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.
- General "Buck" Turgidson (Dr. Strangelove)

I’m a mog: half man, half dog. I’m my own best friend!
- Barf (Spaceballs)

Well, I hope it’s a long ceremony, ’cause it’s gonna be a short honeymoon.
- Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

Why didn’t somebody tell me my ass was so big?
- President Skroob (Spaceballs)

As president of Planet Spaceball, I can assure both you and your viewers that there’s absolutely no air shortage whatsoever. Yes, of course. I’ve heard the same rumor myself. Yes, thanks for calling and not reversing the charges. Bye-bye.
- President Skroob (Spaceballs)

You only think I guessed wrong - that’s what’s so funny. I switched glasses when your back was turned. Ha-ha, you fool. You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia", but only slightly less well known is this: "Never go in against a Sicilian, when *death* is on the line.". Hahahahahah…
- Vizzini (The Princess Bride)

 Well my friend Sweet Jay took me to that video arcade in town, right, and they don’t speak English there, so Jay got into a fight and he’s all, "Hey quit hasslin’ me cuz’ I don’t speak French" or whatever! And then the guy said something in Paris talk, and I’m like, "Just back off!" And they’re all, "Get out!" And we’re like, "Make me!" It was cool.
- Scott Evil (Austin Powers - Internation Man of Mystery)

No, no, go away, I hate you! And yet… I find you strangely attractive.
- Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

…yet another problem created by so many illegal aliens in our midst: deadly car accidents.
- Debbie Schlussel

concentrate… concentrate… I’ve got to concentrate… concentrate… concentrate… Hello?… hello… hello… Echo… echo… echo… Pinch hitting for Pedro Borbon… Manny Mota… Mota… Mota…
- Ted Striker (Airplane!)

Look, if I were joking I would’ve said, "what do you do with an elephant with three balls? You walk him and pitch to the rhino."
- Ramada Thompson (Hot Shots!)

Sir! I have a plan!
- Dr. Strangelove (Dr. Strangelove)

Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious… service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.
- Dr. Strangelove (Dr. Strangelove)

Hmm… Strangelove? What kind of a name is that? That ain’t no Kraut name is it, Stainesey?
- General “Buck” Turgidson (Dr. Strangelove)

I’ve hired you to help me start a war. It’s a prestigious line of work, with a long and glorious tradition.
- Vizzini (The Princess Bride)

Yankee Doodle Floppy Disk, this is Foxtrot Zulu Milk Shake, checking in at seven hundred feet
- Lt. Cmdr. James Block (Hot Shots!)

 Well, no offense, but if that is a woman it looks like she was beaten with an ugly stick!
- Austin Powers (Austin Powers - International Man of Mystery)

So the combination is one, two, three, four, five? That’s the stupidest combination I’ve ever heard in my life! The kind of thing an idiot would have on his luggage!
- Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.
- Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

My hair, he shot my hair. Son of a bitch!
- Princess Vespa (Spaceballs)

Your ears you keep and I’ll tell you why. So that every shriek of every child at seeing your hideousness will be yours to cherish. Every babe that weeps at your approach, every woman who cries out, "Dear God! What is that thing," will echo in your perfect ears. That is what to the pain means. It means I leave you in anguish, wallowing in freakish misery forever.
- Wesley (The Princess Bride)

It’s possible, Pig, I might be bluffing. It’s conceivable, you miserable, vomitous mass, that I’m only lying here because I lack the strength to stand. But, then again… perhaps I have the strength after all.
- Wesley (The Princess Bride)

Update: Recommend this article on my diary at Daily Kos and take the poll at the end.

I recall quipping to a friend a few weeks ago that I thought the way out of Iraq for this Administration was through Iran. What I meant at the time was that since this Administration had haplessly shifted the center of gravity of Iraqi politics to Iran, without Iran having to fire a shot, that the only way to exit out of Iraq with "credibility" was to attack Iran. Iran then becomes a continuation of a larger war "on terror" and it can then not be said that Iraq was lost since it will only become an unfinished chapter in a larger war.

I of course was being cynical. I knew then that there have been people within and outside the Administration who have been advocating for an attack on Iran from the time that "Mission Accomplished" was declared in Iraq. Neo-conservatives had focused their attention on Iran as the next domino in the new American Domino Theory. Some of the most rabid of the neo-cons advocating war were the usual suspects such as Daniel Pipes, Frank Gaffney and Charles Krauthammer. But I had calculated that the appetite for war had waned in Washington due to Mr. Bush’s flagging approval ratings, the disaster in Iraq, the Congressional scandals, and the overextension of the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan. I had obviously underestimated the hunger for war in Washington.

Today the Washington Post reports that the United States is planning for a nuclear strike on Iran. This report comes nipping at the heels of Seymour Hersh’s tour de force in the New Yorker magazine on the same topic. Mr. Hersh has been doggedly pursuing this story for some time, with a report in January that the United States was already engaged in covert action inside Iran.

The drumbeat for war with Iran has been ongoing for some time. The rhetoric and the diplomatic doublespeak is eerily reminiscent of the run up to the Iraq invasion. But what is different this time is that the United States is considering using nuclear weapons as a first strike option against Iran. Apparently the civilian leaders in the Administration have surveyed the options against Iran’s nuclear facilities and concluded that a conventional attack will not cause the requisite amount of damage. So like any group of people bent on destruction, they have decided that if the bomb you are using is not big enough, get a bigger bomb - in our case, a nuclear bomb. This is the kind of thinking I have been able to coax my five-year-old out of over the last year. My daughter has matured to a point where she now tends to utilize thought and consider more the longer-term consequences of her actions instead of first resorting to brute force when confronted with a difficult task.

There is likely to be much discussion of this story in the days, weeks, and months to come. Instead of focusing on the primary story which I suspect will be widely discussed in today’s talk shows and on the web, I would like to use the remainder of this post to highlight two aspects of this story that are particularly frightening.

Seymour Hersh’s writes about Mr. Bush’s determination and motivation in attacking Iran:

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.” [Emphasis added by me]

It has been widely reported and speculated that Mr. Bush sees his mission in remaking the Middle East very much in biblical terms. If Mr. Hersh’s source is accurate in his assessment then we are confronted with a President with messianic and evangelical zeal that will not be tempered by reason or the facts. In this case, war with Iran is inevitable. This is a frightening development, and the dangers may actually increase as Mr. Bush’s popularity slips further. He may feel that the urgency to accomplish his mission becomes greater as his position in office become more tenuous.

The Washington Post reports on a possible timetable for attack and Israel’s role in setting that timetable:

Israel is preparing, as well. The government recently leaked a contingency plan for attacking on its own if the United States does not, a plan involving airstrikes, commando teams, possibly missiles and even explosives-carrying dogs. Israel, which bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 to prevent it from being used to develop weapons, has built a replica of Natanz, according to Israeli media, but U.S. strategists do not believe Israel has the capacity to accomplish the mission without nuclear weapons.

…

Israel points to those missiles to press their case in Washington. Israeli officials traveled here recently to convey more urgency about Iran. Although U.S. intelligence agencies estimate Iran is about a decade away from having a nuclear bomb, Israelis believe a critical breakthrough could occur within months. They told U.S. officials that Iran is beginning to test a more elaborate cascade of centrifuges, indicating that it is further along than previously believed.

"What the Israelis are saying is this year — unless they are pressured into abandoning the program — would be the year they will master the engineering problem," a U.S. official said. "That would be a turning point, but it wouldn’t mean they would have a bomb." [Emphasis added by me]

The Israelis have been pushing the notion of a point of no return, or "turning point", for quite some time, arguing that even though the actual bomb may be sometime away the date on the calendar that we should be concerned about is much sooner when the Iranian program reaches a technical threshold that once achieved cannot be reversed. Israel has chosen a timetable for attack by the United States by the end of this year by indicating if this attack does not happen, they will launch the attack unilaterally. Israel has also been at the forefront of the nuclear strike option.

The timetable set by Israel for the United States dovetails nicely with the November Congressional elections. An attack on Iran would politically rescue Mr. Bush and the Congressional Republicans from the disaster in Iraq. The actual attack does not have to occur before the elections, in fact it is better politically that the attack take place after the elections. The drumbeat to war and the tension and fear it will generate for the public is much more useful as a political tool than the war itself. By this time in early November, with any luck for the Republicans, the daily death toll in Iraq, the Congressional scandals, the NSA spying and the fallout from the NIE leaking should all take a backseat to the coming war with Iran. With these constraints, the likely strike date on Iran will be in late November or early December of this year, just in time for the Christmas season.

In many ways, war has already begun with Iran. The conversation has changed. It should give all of us pause that on this day in the 21st Century we are considering the possibility that the greatest experiment in Democracy in the history of the world is about to launch a nuclear first strike against another sovereign state. May our children forgive us.

On looking back I have written a fair share of posts on Charles Krauthammer from immigration to Iraq. For those, who like me, can’t get enough of Mr. Krauthammer, I offer a veritable feast of Krauthammer:

• Charles Krauthammer Builds A Wall
• Charles Krauthammer’s Neo-Conservative Moment - Or Francis Fukuyama As The Oracle
• Charles Krauthammer Chokes On A Chicken Hawk
• More On The Charles Krauthammer Column
• Charles Krauthammer Lunches With The Ladies Of Bull Run

Ok, maybe the attention I pay Mr. Krauthammer is a sign of hidden affection for this Oracle of the right. I confess to being an avid reader of his columns. So in return here is a big wet kiss.

In 1987 I visited the divided city of Berlin. I like countless other tourists took the opportunity of a day visa to visit communist East Berlin. I traveled through Checkpoint Charlie and across the border into bleak East Berlin. I realized to my surprise that the Berlin Wall was not one wall rather it was two walls with guard towers and assorted tools of oppression filling the space between the two.

One image from my day in East Berlin stays with me to this day. As my companions and I traveled through East Berlin on foot, we came upon some surface rail tracks on a dilapidated side street. Those tracks were interrupted by a wall, the Berlin Wall, that cut through the middle of that street. The next day, back in West Berlin I decided to try and locate the other end of those tracks. Sure enough, on a quiet West Berlin street, the remains of old rail tracks emerged from the west side of the Berlin Wall. So, I did, what every idealistic college student in my position would have done, I proceeded to relieve myself on the Wall.

Fast forward nineteen years and we find that the architectural wonder that was the Berlin Wall still inspires armchair wall builders amongst us. Charles Krauthammer again uses the pages of the Washington Post to exercise his ample but confused mind. Krauthammer believes that a wall on the Mexican border is just what we need to keep those pesky Mexicans out and law-abiding citizens in:

Forget employer sanctions. Build a barrier. It is simply ridiculous to say it cannot be done. If one fence won’t do it, then build a second 100 yards behind it. And then build a road for patrols in between. Put in cameras. Put in sensors. Put out lots of patrols.

Can’t be done? Israel’s border fence has been extraordinarily successful in keeping out potential infiltrators who are far more determined than mere immigrants. Nor have very many North Koreans crossed into South Korea in the past 50 years.

The first thing that came to my mind was that Krauthammer must really have done some study of the Berlin Wall and must have learned those lessons well. But then he warned us with incredible mind reading capability not to make that very obvious comparison:

And don’t tell me that this is our Berlin Wall. When you build a wall to keep people in, that’s a prison. When you build a wall to keep people out, that’s an expression of sovereignty. The fence around your house is a perfectly legitimate expression of your desire to control who comes into your house to eat, sleep and use the facilities. It imprisons no one.

I’m sorry Charles but I guess I don’t see this as very neighborly. The two examples you cite, of Israel and North Korea, refer to states or entities in a state of war with their neighbors. Last time I checked, we were not at war with Mexico. Perhaps you believe we should be at war, but that really is another topic of discussion.

Mr. Krauthammer then generously offers to grant amnesty to the undocumented aliens already here. But not just yet. He wants to build the wall first, see how things go for say about two years, and then grant these unfortunate souls amnesty. Gee thanks Charles:

To achieve national consensus on legalization, we will need a short lag time between the two provisions, perhaps a year or two, to demonstrate to the skeptics that the current wave of illegals is indeed the last.

His proposal, though he may think it clever, is moronic at so many levels that my mind may explode to try to write down all of them. To save myself an aneurysm, I will only mention the most obvious one.

I wonder if Krauthammer realizes that the Berlin Wall attempted to divide a city, not to build a wall between two countries with a vast shared land border. Perhaps math is not his forte, but I should point out that he should get his calculator out, hire some land surveyors, and a good therapist, and figure out the logistics involved and the costs involved in building his wall. While he is at it, he might want to consider how to guard against invasion by sea from poor Mexicans. Perhaps a giant wall in the sea? I wonder if he remembers the Mariel Boat Lift from 1980 when Cubans came by sea by the thousands.

I suggest to Mr. Krauthammer and anyone else interested in genuine border control that perhaps they should ask two very simple questions.

• Why are people from Mexico coming to the United States?
• Will undocumented immigrants from Mexico wait in line to be guest workers instead of coming across the border illegally?

I think the answers are simple. People come across the border because there is work here that pays significantly better than the Third World wages they get in Mexico. There is also no reason to suspect that an expanded legal immigration path will stem the flow of undocumented immigrants coming from Mexico. I can’t see any reason when someone in Mexico is desperate for work, they would not do everything possible to make it to the United States regardless of whether it was legal or not.

Anyone serious about border control, and not just looking for cheap labor, clearly has to address the economic conditions in Mexico. As long as there is such a great disparity in economic conditions between these two neighbors, you can reasonably expect that Mexicans looking for work will find a way to get here to earn a living they otherwise cannot do in Mexico.

So, Mr. Krauthammer and the rest of you, put down your brick and trowel and use your ample but misguided minds to come up with an economic development plan for Mexico that will in the end benefit the United States greatly.

Once you have done that, you can then start thinking about smart border control using advanced technology and the considerable human intelligence skills of our Border Control personnel. You can also then with confidence legalize the millions of undocumented immigrants already here.

Daniel Pipes gave an interview yesterday to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review entitled "Pipes calls war a success". In it Pipes calls Iraq a success:

Q: How will we know when the occupation or the invasion of Iraq was a success or a failure?

A: Oh, it was a success. We got rid of Saddam Hussein. Beyond that is icing.

According to Pipes, the real lesson in Iraq is not the failure of American policy, but the ingratitude of the Iraqi people:

Q: What is the biggest lesson you have learned from the Iraq war?

A: The ingratitude of the Iraqis for the extraordinary favor we gave them — to release them from the bondage of Saddam Hussein’s tyranny. They have rapidly interpreted it as something they did and that we were incidental to it. They’ve more or less written us out of the picture.

I am really sorry the Iraqi people have hurt Mr. Pipes’s feelings. Clearly, the Iraqis failed to throw the requisite amount of roses at our feet for the favor we did them.

Mr. Pipes thinks that we should lower our expectations in Iraq. According to Mr. Pipes, we should only concern ourselves with destroying societies not rebuilding them. We’ve got smart bombs we should use them. The blue collar work of rebuilding a society that we bomb to oblivion should be left to the lowly Europeans or some other bleeding heart types:

Q: Does that mean a significant change in what we are doing now, in terms of policy. Should we announce withdrawals?

A: The number of troops is not my issue. It’s the placement and role of the troops. For three years now I have been protesting the use of American troops to mediate between tribes, help rebuild electricity grids, oversee school construction, which seems to me to be a wrong use of our forces, of our money. The Iraqis should be in charge of that. We should keep the troops there, in the desert, looking after the international boundaries, making sure there are no atrocities, making sure oil and gas goes out, otherwise leaving Iraq to the Iraqis.

…

Q: Is there anything major that the Bush administration should do now to make things go smoother?

A: We did something good in getting rid of the Taliban and getting rid of Saddam Hussein. That is really the extent of our role, to get rid of the hideous totalitarian regimes.

In any event, the theory is good. It’s the implementation that has gone wrong. Mr. Pipes’s theory has withstood the test of reality:

Q: Do you generally agree with President Bush’s Middle East policy — its goals and its methods?

A: I agree with the goals much more than the methods. I just gave an example of Iraq, where I believe the goal of getting rid of Saddam Hussein and trying to have a free and prosperous Iraq are worthy goals. I criticize the implementation. The same goes with democracy. I think democracy is a great goal for the region. I criticize the implementation; I think it’s too fast, too American, too get-it-done yesterday.

Lest you start thinking that Mr. Pipes is unhappy that the implementation of his theory might have led to unintended consequences, think again. He, like Charles Krauthammer, loves a good civil war. Mr. Pipes enumerates all the good things a bloody civil war can do:

Fixing Iraq is neither the coalition’s responsibility nor its burden. The damage done by Saddam will take many years to repair. Americans, Britons, and others cannot be tasked with resolving Sunni-Shiite differences, an abiding Iraqi problem that only Iraqis themselves can address.

The eruption of civil war in Iraq would have many implications for the West. It would likely:

• Invite Syrian and Iranian participation, hastening the possibility of an American confrontation with those two states, with which tensions are already high.

• Terminate the dream of Iraq serving as a model for other Middle Eastern countries, thus delaying the push toward elections. This will have the effect of keeping Islamists from being legitimated by the popular vote, as Hamas was just a month ago.

• Reduce coalition casualties in Iraq. As noted by the Philadelphia Inquirer, "Rather than killing American soldiers, the insurgents and foreign fighters are more focused on creating civil strife that could destabilize Iraq’s political process and possibly lead to outright ethnic and religious war."

• Reduce Western casualties outside Iraq. A professor at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, Vali Nasr, notes: "Just when it looked as if Muslims across the region were putting aside their differences to unite in protest against the Danish cartoons, the attack showed that Islamic sectarianism remains the greatest challenge to peace." Put differently, when Sunni terrorists target Shiites and vice-versa, non-Muslims are less likely to be hurt.

Civil war in Iraq, in short, would be a humanitarian tragedy but not a strategic one.

It all makes sense to me now. We misunderstood Mr. Pipes when he said Iraq was going to be a cakewalk. When he said "cakewalk", he meant that defeating Saddam would be a cakewalk. The resulting chaos was not part of his thinking. In fact, the resulting chaos is not even our problem. It is all making sense to me now.

Before you dismiss Mr. Pipes as some right wing chicken hawk on the lunatic fringe, you might want to consider that he does have the ear of the President of the United States. The notion that America should rampage through the world without a care for the devastation this rampage may cause the societies which face our wrath is not a fringe notion - it has significant support within the Administration. In fact, it is the primary driving force behind Mr. Bush’s stay the course policy in Iraq. If you genuinely do not care about the consequences of your actions, it is much easier to label your misadventures as successes. This, I think, in large part explains the strange and often disconnected versions of reality that come from the President and the Vice President. After all, according to Mr. Pipes:

We are engaged in a war, a profound war and long-term war, in which Afghanistan and Iraq are sideshows. The real issue is the war that radical Islam, a global phenomenon, has declared on us and that has already been underway for many years, and we’re still at the beginning of it. That’s the really major issue.

Now, if only the Iraqis understood their rightful role in this war of civilizations; if only they understood that they are cannon fodder in the cause of the greater good; if only they understood that Mr. Pipes, from his perch in front of a television screen, thinks the slaughter of innocents is good theater; then and only then, would they be more grateful to the United States for this great favor we have done them. Instead, they continue this nonsense of caring more for their own lives than the greater glory of Daniel Pipes’s small but influential little mind.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I had initially decided not to get too deeply involved in Charles Krauthammer’s tantrum (it is probably best to stay out of the way when you see a man foaming at the mouth). But, I have since changed my mind for two reasons:

• Francis Fukuyama was online today at The Washington Post website answering questions about his book and the Krauthammer column
• Krauthammer’s column has generated substantial debate in the blogosphere

So, I thought I would address the substance of Krauthammer’s charge in his juvenile column more directly. Krauthammer’s column, it seems to me, is basically arguing the following:

1. Francis Fukuyama lied in the Preface of his latest book about a speech Krauthammer made (nana-nana-boo-boo!)
2. Francis Fukuyama in "America At The Crossroads", by making unconvincing arguments,  proves Krauthammer correct that there was no alternative but to attack Iraq (nana-nana-boo-boo!)
3. Francis Fukuyama is a sheep who changed his mind on Iraq after public opinion turned against the war. And everyone knows no self-respecting neo-con can doubt the rightness of one’s cause even against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. (nana-nana-boo-boo!)

There, I think I have captured the essence of Mr. Krauthammer’s bile. Sheesh, these guys don’t like it when they think they are misrepresented. All that venom, and its not even about the book, its about the Preface to the book. Now, that is petty.

I will address each point in turn and, to confuse the reader, I will address them in reverse order. But first, it is well worth pointing out that long before Prof. Fukuyama published his book, he wrote an essay in June 2004 entitled "The Neo-Conservative Moment" for the National Interest critiquing Krauthammer’s speech. In this essay, Fukuyama offers a convincing and compelling critique of Krauthammer’s vision of American dominance in a unipolar world. It is a long essay and I will not attempt to summarize it here. Please read the essay as you may find it remarkably prescient and well informed about our entanglement in Iraq.

In one part of the essay, Fukuyama knocks down one of Krauthammer’s (and Mr. Bush’s) favorite talking points: "Where is it written that Arabs are incapable of democracy?". The implication is that we have a lack of respect for the Arabs when we say this. Fukuyama responds sharply:

It is, of course, nowhere written that Arabs are incapable of democracy, and it is certainly foolish for cynical Europeans to assert with great confidence that democracy is impossible in the Middle East. We have, indeed, been fooled before, not just in Japan but in Eastern Europe prior to the collapse of communism.

But possibility is not likelihood, and good policy is not made by staking everything on a throw of the dice. Culture is not destiny, but culture plays an important role in making possible certain kinds of institutions–something that is usually taken to be a conservative insight. Though I, more than most people, am associated with the idea that history’s arrow points to democracy, I have never believed that democracies can be created anywhere and everywhere through sheer political will. Prior to the Iraq War, there were many reasons for thinking that building a democratic Iraq was a task of a complexity that would be nearly unmanageable. Some reasons had to do with the nature of Iraqi society: the fact that it would be decompressing rapidly from totalitarianism, its ethnic divisions, the role of politicized religion, the society’s propensity for violence, its tribal structure and the dominance of extended kin and patronage networks, and its susceptibility to influence from other parts of the Middle East that were passionately anti-American.

 There, in two short paragraphs, is a concise and coherent reason for not invading Iraq. But, Fukuyama is not breaking new ground here. This is an obvious line of reasoning that the Administration should have seriously contemplated before embarking on our disastrous misadventure in Iraq. Instead, they were drinking Krauthammer’s blood red Kool-Aid.

 Now, to get back to those charges in Krauthammer’s column.

As to the third charge, Fukuyama was against the Iraq invasion publicly from the summer of 2002. Krauthammer is simply misinformed.

As to the second charge, we don’t even have to look at Fukuyama’s book. Fukuyama’s essay outlines many reasons to not invade Iraq (one I mentioned above), not the least of which is that Iraq was not an existential threat to the United States and it therefore did not justify a pre-emptive strike. There were many options on the table for the United States. The argument made after one bad option was exercised to suggest that there were no other plausible alternatives is nonsensical. It is more appropriate to say that Krauthammer saw no other alternative in his own mind because his analysis was clouded by his belief in the certainty of the Iraq mission’s legitimacy. Krauthammer fooled himself, and still fools himself, into believing that his course of action was the only course of action. This is not really about policy, but more about his psyche and best left to the likes of Wittgenstein.

As to the first and obviously the most irksome charge, Fukuyama did not contend that Krauthammer’s speech was about Iraq. Fukuyama’s point was that Krauthammer, in 2004, did not recognize that the failures in Iraq had undermined Krauthammer’s "democratic globalism". Here are the relevant paragraphs from Fukuyama’s critique of the speech:

The 2004 speech is strangely disconnected from reality. Reading Krauthammer, one gets the impression that the Iraq War–the archetypical application of American unipolarity–had been an unqualified success, with all of the assumptions and expectations on which the war had been based fully vindicated. There is not the slightest nod towards the new empirical facts that have emerged in the last year or so: the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the virulent and steadily mounting anti-Americanism throughout the Middle East, the growing insurgency in Iraq, the fact that no strong democratic leadership had emerged there, the enormous financial and growing human cost of the war, the failure to leverage the war to make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian front, and the fact that America’s fellow democratic allies had by and large failed to fall in line and legitimate American actions ex post.

The failure to step up to these facts is dangerous precisely to the neo-neoconservative position that Krauthammer has been seeking to define and justify. As the war in Iraq turns from triumphant liberation to grinding insurgency, other voices–either traditional realists like Brent Scowcroft, nationalist-isolationists like Patrick Buchanan, or liberal internationalists like John Kerry–will step forward as authoritative voices and will have far more influence in defining American post-Iraq War foreign policy. The poorly executed nation-building strategy in Iraq will poison the well for future such exercises, undercutting domestic political support for a generous and visionary internationalism, just as Vietnam did. [Emphasis added by me]

 Fukuyama is quite clear here that Krauthammer does not mention Iraq in his discussion of "democratic globalism" nor does Krauthammer realize that his thesis is not supported by the facts on the ground (does that sound familiar?).

So, it appears to me that Krauthammer has gotten bent out of shape about nothing. He is focusing on the minutia of a Preface of a book to somehow gain the upper hand on an already lost argument. It is truly frightening that the last holdouts of a debunked application of a flawed theory believe so much in the rightness of their cause, that they go to great lengths to deny the reality all around them. Again, it may be time to trot out Wittgenstein.

In the battle of Fukuyama versus Krauthammer, it is safe to say that Krauthammer was knocked out at the opening bell. Compared to Fukuyama’s reasoning, Krauthammer’s thesis sounds downright childish and naive. That is not to say, of course, that Fukuyama is correct in his arguments. But, at least, he is making well thought out arguments that are open for debate amongst reasonable people. And, most importantly, his vision is informed by some connection to reality. As for Krauthammer, it is time to cut back on the Kool-Aid.

Fresh from his "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Civil War" column, Charles Krauthammer points his wrath at Francis Fukuyama in his latest column. Krauthammer is mad as hell and he isn’t going to take it anymore. Apparently, Fukuyama used an anecdote that prominently featured Mr. Krauthammer, but he changed the actual events to protect the guilty. Or something along those lines. It is all very confusing, you see, and I really don’t feel comfortable commenting on the he said-he said. Seems like a private matter between two adults to me.

I am sure Krauthammer, when he calms down, will rethink this column and rewrite it about something entirely different. Until then, I will amuse myself by rereading this very mean-spirited column. I’m guessing that the news from Iraq has got Krauthammer seeing red. He is fighting the enemy (Fukuyama) here so that he doesn’t have to fight the enemy there.

There is one interesting nugget in an otherwise personal letter from Krauthammer to Fukuyama. Defending himself, Krauthammer points out that he believed the Iraq war was necessary but perhaps not winnable. Lest I get accused of misrepresenting him, here are his exact words from the column:

My argument then, as now, was the necessity of this undertaking, never its ensured success. And it was necessary because, as I said, there is not a single, remotely plausible, alternative strategy for attacking the root causes of Sept. 11: "The cauldron of political oppression, religious intolerance, and social ruin in the Arab-Islamic world — oppression transmuted and deflected by regimes with no legitimacy into virulent, murderous anti-Americanism."

Krauthammer takes a leap of faith even Kierkegaard would be proud of here. I am not sure attacking the most secular country in the Arab world was the best way to fight the root causes of the Islamic radicalism that led to the attacks of September 11. In fact, to borrow his phrase, I don’t think that even a remotely plausible argument can be made for the attack on Iraq and its connection to September 11. That is why, the WMD argument was trotted out, and that is why the much-touted phantom link between Saddam Hussein and September 11 was dangled in front of us.

This column from Charles Krauthammer, if it has any larger meaning, may be a shot across the bow of all wavering neo-cons and chicken hawks. Abandon ship at your own peril. Your former shipmates will be pointing the ship’s cannons at you before your feet even hit the water below.

Conservative blogger Ben Domenech has resigned from The Washington Post after revelations that he plagiarized articles in The National Review and other publications. His blog, Red America, is no more.

He did not go quietly into the night however. True to script, he tried to first shoot the messenger. He lashed out at the liberal blogs, especially Atrios, for trying to destroy him. He tried to blame the plagiarism on a few teenage indiscretions (why does that sound familiar?). He tried to blame an unethical editor for adding plagiarized material into his articles. He pretty much blamed everyone - including the vast left wing conspiracy. I began to wonder if even Saddam Hussein might have inserted un-attributed material into Domenech’s articles. Before you laugh off the Saddam connection, consider that a man capable of hiding and/or transporting his WMD arsenal to Syria might be capable of anything. This is yet another story that is not being reported in the main stream media.

Domenech’s protestations lost some steam when The National Review editors noted that their review of Domenech’s articles for the NRO "raises questions about several other pieces besides the one we apologized for this morning". Note that even though the NRO articles under Domenech’s byline appear to be plagiarized by someone there is still no clear evidence contradicting the Saddam-Domenech connection posited earlier in this post.

What is a conservative plagiarist to do when a prominent conservative magazine is accusing you of plagiarism? Mea Culpa time.

Of course, mea culpa after the "deny, attack, prevaricate" strategy seems a little less than heartfelt. But, Ben, on behalf of people everywhere who can read, I accept your apology.

Is it me or does the Ben Domenech defense seem very similar to the Administration’s PR strategy in Iraq. The Administration is also going through the five stages of grief over the defeat in Iraq. The five stages of grief are Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance. My guess is that last weekend we experienced the Denial and Anger stages. Charles Krauthammer’s column in The Washington Post ushered in the Bargaining stage. There is still some time to go before we hit Depression and Acceptance.

In the future I hope the Administration will save us the collective grieving process by not engaging in hopeless misadventures.

Author’s Note: In the event that you do not recognize the satire in the title of this post, I want to clarify that it is a variation of James Joyce’s novel "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" and is in no way intended to be original thought by the author. There, I feel cleansed.