This is the subheading of Mark Steyn’s latest Spectator piece:
Mark Steyn lists the countries that must be dealt with if we are to win the war against terrorism
Okay. But the first regime listed gave me a bit of a turn:
New Hampshire
Does the axis of evil have a new member? Has the Governor of New Hampshire been stockpiling weapons of mass destruction? Is the whole article some kind of joke? Steyn is a funny man. Is this a funny piece?
Steyn goes on to list five further targets for regime change: Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and North Korea.
Profound changes in the above countries would not necessarily mean the end of the war on terror, but it would be pretty close. It would remove terrorism’s most brazen patron (Syria), its ideological inspiration (the prototype Islamic Republic of Iran), its principal paymaster (Saudi Arabia), a critical source of manpower (Sudan) and its most potentially dangerous weapons supplier (North Korea). They’re the fronts on which the battle has to be fought: it’s not just terror groups, it’s the state actors who provide them with infrastructure and extend their global reach. Right now, America – and Britain, Australia and Italy – are fighting defensively, reacting to this or that well-timed atrocity as it occurs. But the best way to judge whether we’re winning and how serious we are about winning is how fast the above regimes are gone. Blair speed won’t do.
That all sounds fairly serious, doesn’t it? So what does Steyn have against New Hampshire? Ah. Penny drops. New Hampshire is where he was writing from. The universe makes sense again.
Nevertheless, behind this little joke there is a serious point. Steyn is describing a war against terrorism that does make sense to me. But the opponents of this war say that by the time Uncle Sam has toppled the regimes of Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and North Korea – or by the time it has given up trying to – it will indeed end up governing New Hampshire, and everywhere else in the USA, somewhat differently. War is the health of the state, as somebody once said.
My answer would be that hardly anyone is suggesting that there be no vigorous war fought against Islamic terrorism – and hence that no measures be taken that might infringe the liberties of Americans, or others. The war is being fought and will go on being fought. The only serious argument is about where to fight it. Is it to be fought in places like Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, North Korea, and back home in places like New Hampshire? Or should some or all of the first five be struck off the list?
Either way, New Hampshire is indeed liable to end up a rather different place.
Ph3ar the Free State Project!!
Well, of course Boston (not in New Hampshire but close to it) would have been a good place to start when Britain was fighting the war on terrorism in the 70s and 80s, since Irish-Americans were among the terrorists’ principal paymasters. However, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they were naive and deluded in those innocent (for America) days, rather than actively malignant like the Saudis.
Steyn’s piece was, as always, absolutely brilliant. And he has a better handle on the Middle East than any other commentator. President Bush should have listened to him in the first place! (I am certain Rumsfeld agreed with him.)
Steyn is right in a perfect world. Unfortunately, the U.S. is good for only one major war/occupation/reconstruction per Presidential term, at most. And, yes, assuming even most of this would come to pass, New Hampshire would be a different place.
“Unfortunately, the U.S. is good for only one major war/occupation/reconstruction per Presidential term, at most.”
The President Bush is giving good value, because we have had two, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Dang, Brian, you beat me to the Steyn piece! I lapse into a turkey-induced coma, and this is what I get.
Steyn is bang on. BTW, he is not advocating invasion and occupation of those 5 nations. Quite the contrary, as he makes clear early on. Rather, he is saying that the war won’t be won until regime change has occurred in all 5 terrorist states, and that fiddling around, as Blair and the EUnuchs would advise, won’t do. The article adverts to a number of ways we can hasten regime change without going all shock and awe on them.
Particularly instructive were Steyn’s thoughts on the very real costs of seeking international approval for the invasion of Iraq. That six month pause to play footsie with the frogs did nothing to help our side, and much to help the bad guys.
Regime change is also desperately needed in San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, and Vermont, with its leftward trifecta of Leahy, Jeffords and Bernie Sanders in Congress.
And Britain.
Interesting analysis by TM Lutas: that, on the contrary, the US needs to avoid having too many problems come to the boil at once. A faster pace could risk military overstretch, doubling of defence budgets, and to give longer term political change a chance to work.
“War is the Health of the State” was first said by Randoph Bourne in an uncompleted 1918 essay.
Bring those islamofacists up here to the great state of New Hampshire, so we can give them, and the rest of the flatlanders and idiotarians a stern lesson in what the 2nd amendment really means. I’m ready.
Live Free Or Die
I totally agree with Steyn that it would be great to change the regimes of those 5 countries to something better. It would also be great to eradicate world poverty, cure disease, and get rid of all corrupt politicians. But George Bush will convert to Islam before that happens.
Steyn doesn’t discuss how any of this could be made politically feasible, let alone actually carried out. He doesn’t make any attempt to weigh up the costs, to set against his proposed benefits. He doesn’t estimate the probability of failure, to weigh against the chance of success. He doesn’t discuss the downside (e.g. bad regimes getting replaced by worse regimes). As such, it is just pie in the sky punditry, good for selling magazines and generating a lot of hot air, but not much else.
Politics is the art of the possible. Marx couldn’t persuade; Bush/the right must understand the need to gather support.