February 27, 2004

THAT'S QUITE A RECORD OF SUCCESS:

Tomorrow the World: a review of An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror by David Frum and Richard Perle (Thomas Powers, NY Review of Books)

"Hard-line" is a word defined by thirty years of examples. At various times hard-liners, Perle often among them, pushed for more and better nuclear weapons, ridiculed the notion of "arms control," argued for victory in Vietnam, were ready to spread the war into Laos, Cambodia, and even North Vietnam itself, supported Israel's invasion of Lebanon, wanted to kick the Sandinistas out of Nicaragua, argued that an all-out arms race would spend the Soviet Union into bankruptcy, pushed for American recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, backed the scrapping of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, supported a clear commitment to defend Taiwan, and expressed contempt for the United Nations. To be hard-line involves the willingness to use force, realism about using money and power to get one's way, impatience with feel-good idealism, all-out backing for friends, and contempt for efforts to placate enemies. "Hard-liners" share an Old Testament view of the world, promise an eye for an eye, know what they want, and never forget an injury.

But perhaps most important of all, hard-liners are comfortable with the fact of overwhelming American military and economic power, and argue that it ought to be used without apology to chastise enemies, support friends, and get what America wants.


With the exception of the Lebanon invasion--and attacking N. Vietnam, which tragically wasn't even attempted--didn't every single one of those policies work ?

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 27, 2004 8:40 PM
Comments

To sum up the article (and that lovely drawing that goes along with it): Richard Perle is a filthy, conniving Jew.

The author must have just returned from a screening of The Passion.

Posted by: brian at February 27, 2004 9:21 PM

I feel I shouldn't have to say this, but here goes: What's wrong with defending Taiwan from an overwhelming bully? What's wrong with wanting to rid Nicaragua of a junta the people voted from office at their first opportunity? What's wrong with spending the Soviet Union out of existence? Do the critics want stalemate? Or defeat? Or endless, soulless quagmire?

The answer is easy - they did. Perhaps they still do.

Posted by: John Barrett Jr. at February 27, 2004 10:54 PM

Of course, the silliest whine is about the scrapping of the anti-ballistic missile treaty. I keep having nightmares about a world where the USSR and the US are no longer restrained by the best legal language in the world. Then I wake up and realize the USSR no longer exists...

Posted by: MG at February 27, 2004 11:12 PM

brian:

Mr. Perle is not particularly handsome, but that caricature is unfortunate, isn't it.

Posted by: oj at February 27, 2004 11:24 PM

I'd be willing to argue that the invasion of Lebanon worked. It wasn't costless, but it accomplished what the Israelis wanted it to accomplish.

Posted by: David Cohen at February 28, 2004 5:32 PM

David:

?

Posted by: oj at February 28, 2004 8:29 PM

Israel secured a buffer zone, brought peace to the border (or at least stopped guerilla infiltrations), distracted Syria and forced it to spend men and money, and best of all crippled the PLO and drove it out of Lebanon.

Posted by: David Cohen at March 1, 2004 11:31 PM
« FALL AND RISE: | Main | NOT A FACTUAL ASSESSMENT?: »