So when Der Spiegel's Washington correspondent, Gabor Steingart, speaks of 2007 as a year of victory for our jihadi enemies and defeat for the West (and in particular America under Bush), I can only conclude that he has believed deep down all along that we are defeated. His analysis is stunning in its ability to spin a good year for the good guys (that's us, Mr. Steingart) into a year of defeat.
Steingart writes:
Ongoing difficulties in Iraq. A Taliban offensive in Afghanistan. And now the assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan. For the West, 2007 has been a year of failure and missteps.
Fascinating. Our "difficulties" in Iraq are part of a far better Iraq that we have fought to achieve allong with our Iraqi and Coalition allies. Our enemies, still wanting to win, continue to fight.
The Taliban offensive in Afghanistan resulted in lots of dead Taliban. Fire up the victory hookah, eh?
And since when is it our responsibility to protect every politician in every corner of the world?
He goes on:
The Thursday assassination (more...) of Benazir Bhutto is a huge, shocking and possibly even historic triumph for the enemies of democracy. Even worse, the attack was the gruesome culmination of what has been a successful year for them.
It is also not reaching too far to say that the shots that fatally wounded Bhutto in Rawalpindi Thursday also killed off any hope that the Islamic world could find peace of its own accord in the foreseeable future.
This is making too much of Bhutto. The fate of one billion Moslems did not turn on Bhutto's life or death. The jihadis will find their victory short-lived. The reality is that the enemy is desperate to fight in Pakistan. Out of options elsewhere, the jihadis have abandoned their safe haven there in order to attack. The jihadis have created a new enemy by striking in Pakistan. The new year will be bloody but the jihadis are not about to storm the palace and take over Pakistan.
He has a glimmer of sentience when he notes that Islam is not in any position to right its own house any time soon. But don't get your hopes up. Don't for a moment he thinks that this might mean there is a real war going on because of that failure to right their own ship.
As for America and Bush, the assassination demonstrates:
This world power has rarely looked so powerless -- and Bush has rarely looked so helpless.
The reality is that we don't control every action in every corner of the world--I wish we were that good! It is unfortunate that Bhutto was murdered. It shows the hatred of our jihadi enemies. But it isn't the end of the world. She isn't indispensible. And it isn't our fault. If we'd assigned Blackwater personnel or Navy SEALs to protect her, how would that have looked? Bhutto wanted to lead Pakistan. She had to navigate the dangerous waters of Pakistani blood sport politics. Pakistanis must beat the jihadis.
Steingart's lessons?
Lesson one: The conflict with radical Islam is not the hobby of a US president gone berserk. This will become all the more clear next November when American voters go to the polls. Bush, who cannot run for re-election due to term limitations, will go, but the conflict with Islam will remain. In fact, it is growing more intense. That, at least, is what the murder of this exceptionally brave woman in Pakistan has given to the West: a high degree of clarity. The radical Islamists will not tolerate any democrats, even if they come from their own countries.
So far, so good. He sounds like a Neo-Con here, admitting that it isn't so much what we do that the jihadis hate but democracy itself. But don't get your hopes up, this is his high point. You see, it quickly becomes clear, if it isn't already, that Steingart thinks we made it more intense by fighting the jihadis.
Lesson two: Bush will not be in a position to do much to end this conflict. He is a war president and an unsuccessful one at that. Even if he talks about diplomacy, it sounds like preparation for war.
Where to begin? This is a Long War. Bush had to start the fight when we were attacked. Someone else must finish it up. Certainly, one reason the fight will be passed on is that people have fought Bush tooth and nail to stop him from fighting the war. Who knows when the end of the war will occur? I sure don't. And it is amazing that Bush is considered a warmonger whether he wages war or pursues diplomacy--his opponents just hear war.
Lesson three: The classic military intervention -- Bush's formula against the danger of terrorism -- has not been successful up to now and will not be so in the future. And the situation in nuclear-armed Pakistan is clearly not one where any sort of military operation should be considered.
He says this a lot but offers no argument let alone proof that military intervention has been unsuccessful. The Philippines, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia have all been subjected to American military intervention in varying degrees. And intervention has taken place around Africa and in other locations in low-key efforts by small detachments to strengthen locals against jihadi efforts. All successful. And that includes Afghanistan and Iraq where thug regimes were destroyed and the thug terrorists were killed in large numbers with those governments now our allies fighting at our side.
So what do we do about the jihadis who hate democracy? Well, he says that the jihadis have reflexive resentment of the West who they blame for their problems. So the best thing to do is nothing and let their problems be their undoing. And he speaks approvingly of the West doing nothing against the nuclear-armed and mighty Soviets in 1956 and 1981 when Hungarians and Poles resisted Soviet control:
Soviet Communism broke apart all by itself a short time later.
President Bush would likewise have been better served had he kept the troops home instead of sending them into Iraq. The invasion resulted in high human and political losses, without an identifiable benefit on the other side of the balance sheet. Having marched into Baghdad in 2003, however, the US cannot now leave.
Wow, that is concentrated idiocy. The Soviet Union just broke apart "all by itself" he says! Perhaps it sounds better in the original German. He goes on:
In Afghanistan, NATO would have been well-advised to concentrate exclusively on capturing al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, instead of digging wells, building schools and trying to push the underdeveloped country toward democracy at the barrel of a gun. Such activism has helped few and has done little to promote democracy.
Really? By the time we were into the nation-building stage, Osama was hiding safely in Pakistan in their sanctuary. And like many war opponents, we aren't pushing democracy at the barrel of a gun (that's how Germany got democracy, of course). No, thug theocrats are trying to kill democracy with guns. We are using our guns to defend democracy. Big difference. But not to him, I guess.
And let me include his final paragraphs in full so you don't miss the nuances of his errors:
In short, the best argument against military intervention is its record of failure. It is rarely worth the expense and rarely worth the human lives lost and ruined.
But does that mean we should capitulate? Should the West sit on the sidelines sipping tea? Absolutely not.
The West has to protect itself and its people with everything modern technology has placed at its disposal. The West needs to be prepared to talk and negotiate with all those who are willing to talk -- even if they happen to be thugs. And of course there is an important role to be played by the military and by secret services -- but primarily in the service of targeted operations against terror camps and cells. While mass invasions have proven useless, pinprick operations continue to have an important place in the West's arsenal.
And perhaps it is once again time for European diplomacy to open up a new way of seeing things to the Americans. In the altercation with the Soviet Union and the communist bloc, Europe found success. Many in the US were set on a confrontational course while Europeans preferred an easing of tensions. It was the English Prime Minister Winston Churchill, just eight years after World War II ended, who voiced his conviction that, wherever possible, a measured, more patient and less aggressive foreign policy was the way to go.
Speaking before a Congressional group in June, 1954, Churchill said that vigilance was indeed a necessary component of dealing with the Communist bloc. But, he went on, "It is better to jaw-jaw than to war-war."
Good grief. The combination of historical illiteracy and poor analytical abilities is astounding. We saved the Afghans from the Taliban and al Qaeda. We saved Iraqis from Saddam and are saving them from jihadis and Iranian thugs. We saved Kosovo Moslems. We saved Bosnian Moslems. We saved Somali Moslems from starving. We saved South Koreans. Our Cold War efforts saved Western Europe and freed Eastern Europe. We saved Germans and Japanese and Italians in World War II. We saved countless peoples under the boots of Nazi, Fascist, and Japanese military rule. We freed our slaves. But no, I mean other than those meager examples, we've saved nobody with military intervention.
Although I confess if Steingart is typical of German thinking, I'm starting to think maybe I want our 250,000 dead from liberating Germany from the Nazis back. Maybe that wasn't worth it. We should have talked to the Nazis. And if the Nazis got a little too visible in their oppression, we could have shelled a coastal city now and again.
And ah yes, the Cold War was a mere "altercation." Just an unfortunate misunderstanding. And in case Steingart didn't notice it, we didn't go to war with the Soviet Union. Nor did we just ignore them and let their internal problems stop them. We resisted the Soviets and defended our allies until our pressure and their internal problems collapsed their economy and willpower. Quoting Churchill's advice to avoid nuclear war in order to advocate Steingart's policy of getting along with thugs and lobbing cruise missiles for no point but to pretend we are tough is ridiculous.
Steingart has learned nothing of America or our part in history. He's been defeated since before the first shot was fired at us and nothing has changed his mind or enlightened him further. He could write his drivel that his readers eat up in Berlin and save his bosses a few Euros for having him in Washington. Perhaps he should be Der Speigel's fashion writer, instead.
