The problem with waiting for Iran to become a nuclear power is that the leaders of Iran keep saying crazy things and promising to do crazy things.
We are beginning to see the national debate about what to do in the Middle East shape up into fairly specific sides. I call them the “Do it now” crowd and the “Do it later” crowd.
One can cite history to support either side. The “Do it now” crowd these days are called “neoconservatives” and they are led by people like Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, a respected forum that makes ordinary Republicans look like wimps. Arguing for “Do it later” is George Will, a respected conservative Washington Post syndicated columnist.
It should be noted that there is also a “Let’s not do anything” or a “Let’s run away” crowd that is called liberals and/or Democrats.
Maybe it’s just a trick of my imagination, but I seem to recall Americans of all descriptions just loving those images on television after 9-11 of the U.S. bombing the hell out of Afghanistan’s Tora Bora region where Osama bin Laden was said to be hiding or, better still, driving our tanks into downtown Baghdad. Later we found Saddam Hussein hiding in a hole in the ground.
Perhaps the most powerful argument for “Doing it now” is the fact that it’s been five years since 9/11 and the U.S. has not experienced another comparable attack. Keeping al Qaeda on the run, killing its leaders, and playing havoc with its funding was, in retrospect, probably a good idea.
Now the images on television are of war in Israel and Lebanon. Israel has been the subject of attacks since the day it declared its independence in 1948. It took awhile for the message to sink in, but its neighbors eventually figured out that massing armies on its borders was a very bad idea. They switched to a low-level war involving suicide bombers and rockets. Imagine how long we would patiently deal with Canada if it was rocketing our cities and towns across that border?
The “Do it now” crowd is now rooting for Israel to get rid of Hezbollah in Lebanon; mostly Palestinians who took up residence there after previously losing encounters with Israel and Jordan. First thing they did, of course, was to lay waste to Lebanon with a fifteen-year civil war pitting Muslims against Christians. Having no idea what peace is, other than the total destruction of Israel, Palestinians and other Arabs are once again learning what a bad idea it is to provoke yeshiva boys.
In Gaza, Hamas — another group of unhappy Palestinians — is also getting shot up by the Israelis. Israel's “Do it now” crowd has concluded that waiting around for peace with Palestinians is a bad idea and a higher level of payback may prove palliative.
All of which brings us to our “Do it later” crowd, who advise that waiting is just as good an idea, particularly as regards Iran, which everyone knows is developing its own nuclear weapons capability. By way of a reminder, it was Iranians who in 1979 invaded the U.S. embassy in Tehran, seized our diplomats, and held them hostage for 444 days. It can be argued that most Iranians are being held hostage, but the funding and arming of Hezbollah comes from Iran.
The “Do it later” crowd always proudly points to how we patiently waited for the former Soviet Union to implode. The problem with that argument is that we also engaged in several proxy wars with them. Owing to Red China’s intervention, the best the U.S. could achieve was a stalemate in Korea, and now we are stuck with a loony dictator in the north who has missiles and nukes.
Then there was that nastiness in Vietnam. Despite that loss the U.S. stayed busy, sending troops to various places for the purpose of peacekeeping or swatting bad guys in Grenada, Panama, and Haiti. In 1983 Hezbollah blew up several hundred U.S. Marines who were in Beirut on a peacekeeping mission.
After the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, we funded and equipped Muslim holy warriors to drive out the Russians, thus helping to bring about the downfall of the Soviet Union. The Muslims, however, became al Qaeda and showed their gratitude by destroying the World Trade Center, flying a commercial jet into the Pentagon, and killing some 3,000 Americans.
The problem with waiting for Iran to become a nuclear power is that the leaders of Iran keep saying crazy things and promising to do crazy things. Even Arabs, no slouches when it comes to crazy, think the Persian, albeit Muslim, Iranians are really crazy.
So, while the warnings and recommendations of the “Do it later” crowd sound like a good idea, they rarely are. History is filled with examples of why “Do it now” is a better idea because failure to respond to Big Trouble almost always results in Even Bigger Trouble.
Every generation of Americans has had to learn this lesson. The nation has always been sharply divided over questions of war. This is what we pay Presidents to decide. After 9-11, we wanted the President to punish al Qaeda and, somewhat reluctantly, we agreed to his getting rid of a murderous despot in Iraq. Then we wanted that war to be over in two weeks.
History is rarely so accommodating. Wars tend to be very messy and this is especially true of the years after victory is declared. Militarily, we are still in Europe since the end of World War II in 1945. We are still in South Korea since 1953.
War is transformative and, even the most cursory look back at the past half-century or so reveals that the U.S. has benefited itself and much of the world by opposing evil. Wherever the forces of evil may be and whomever they might call themselves, we still need to be able to “Do it now” because power-crazed lunatics will always find an excuse to make trouble.
As we debate whether to “Do it now” or “Do it later” regarding the Iranian mullahs, perhaps we should recall British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who, after negotiating with Adolph Hitler, returned home to proclaim “peace in our time.”







































studies, studies, we need more studies
Though I believe the prudent thing would be to “do it now,” I vote for
“do it later.” My reason being that the “let’s just hope they don’t mean it
when they say, ‘kill the infidel’” crowd will not take any threat seriously until
a few people are put up against the wall. If we “do it now,” they will bellyache
about “unprovoked aggression,” “illegal/phony war,” and “it’s all for oil.” I’m
tired of hearing this tripe. Let’s give the “run away” crowd what they want.
Let’s give them another 9-11 and hope that a solid knock to the head will
bring them to their senses.
Lane, I hear you. If they would just attack the DNC, I’m with you. Still, what if you have family that travel or live on either coasts? Don’t let the Left dictate (Even though that’s the dream of the p.c. crowd: DICTATORSHIP!). I don’t want this country in mourning. I’d prefer it hated for kicking every one’s…..handing them their tripe! (I almost forgot this was a family show..)
If I thought that were an option, Joseph, I’d want to spare us mourning as
well. But children are now our princes (at least, that’s the way they act),
and a child doesn’t understand a hammer until he’s smashed his finger
at a nail. Though my family has largely chosen to live in areas that are
not likely to be attacked, if they did live on the coasts, my opinion would
be the same. I’ve come to terms with my own mortality, and that of those I
love. The terrorists will kill them if they come to our shores, just like they will
kill me. I will simply make them pay as dearly as I can.
Many would say that my position is cruel, heartless, and wrong. I say what’s
wrong is seeing three thousand of our fellow citizens murdered by
terrorists, then seeing elements of our citizenry and government say that
we souldn’t strike back, we should mind our own business, that our efforts
violate some nebulous “international law” that they can’t even cite with
any certainty, and when we have a President who has the guts to do
something, they hate him so much that they would rather see sevicemen
dead and imprisoned than to admit that maybe there’s a chance he possibly
did the right thing. That’s cowardice, plain and simple, and they hate Bush
and the military because Bush and the military expose their cowardice as
such. Since, however, they have made cowardice so profitable, they must
demonize those who demonstrate courage.
Words are inadequate to express the depth of my resentment.
And so I say, let’s do it later. Let the cowards reap the rewards of cowardice.
Let them feel the point of the sword of Islam against their throats, and let the
blood of innocent Americans stain their hands for their hatred of Bush and
the Americans who would secure their safety. And if fate decides that my
blood is among that which must be spilled before Joe Biden and John Murtha
and others of their ilk see the error of their ways, well, I will accuse them from
the grave, and others will carry on the fight, I’ve no doubt.
As a veteran of the military, remembering my teaching from those who were veterans of war, I was taught to “Know your enemy!” And I mean everything! His strengths, weaknesses, his equipment, mental attitude, and how to destroy them without dying yourself! I don’t agree with the “Wait and see crowd!” How many times do you have to be hit in the head before you wake up and realize you’re at war! You can only win wars by offensive actions and killing the enemy before he kills you! We now know, without a doubt, who our enemies are and which ones are in line for priority of action. I dont want to “Wait and see” how many Americans my enemies can kill.
Iran may be crazy, but look impartially- America is a lot crazier (and more powerful).