Why Norman Podhoretz - a Ranking Chickenhawk - is Eager for WWIV

The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution.

Hannah Arendt

For viewers eager to catch-up on rebroadcast C-SPAN2 interviews this past weekend, they had a chance to get a glimpse of the working logic of the formidable Neocon architect, Norman Podhoretz, who recently wrote "World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism." The one-time liberal radical illustrates how, when you make a 180 degree political turn, you’ll probably remain dizzy for the rest of your life. Unfortunately, that fact’s not so obvious to American "leaders" like W who recently absorbed his rationale for bombing Iran, and Giuliani who turns to him as his foreign policy expert.

Perhaps the most amazing characteristic about Podhoretz, as well as others like Kristol, Perle, Wolfowitz, and every member of the PNAC, is how certain they are about their speculation on exactly what’s emerging in the world, how it should be dealt with, how long it’s going to take, and what the outcome is going to be. They don’t seem to understand that regardless of how many footnotes they cite, their observations about radical Islam and the fate of the Muslim cultures is merely speculation. In their case, speculation that’s woefully formulated.

Never before in history have circumstances like this occurred so that "experts" can’t rely on pure experience and empirical evidence to substantiate their views regardless of which side they take. That’s infuriating for Empiricists. In lieu of sticking to just the facts, which are, at best, sparse, they have collectively decided to rely on cunning, forceful rhetoric - the kind John Wayne had no difficulty with - and, so far the most effective weapon, demonization.

Their basic schtick: A tough world requires tough actions; critical thinking should be held to a minimum; and it’s better to shoot first and ask questions - only when you’re forced to - later, much later. Indeed, the savvy interviewer, Charles Pena, faced heavy resistance when asking profound questions Pohoretz didn’t feel fit his neatly packaged agenda: Islamofascists are rotten and we better start eliminating them yesterday - millions of them, according to his view.

How did it happen that America reached a point whereby right wing zealots (the word intellectuals would be inaccurate in that a form of authentic inquiry is requisite for intellectual pursuits) have so much influence, especially six years after their ill-conceived plans have summarily failed? Why are Americans allowing these people to rule their lives and ruin their future? If nothing else, it’s a stunning example of foibles, follies and failures on a mass level. The Neocons are entitled to write what they want, but who are the dolts subscribing to the Weekly Standard and Commentary? And where the hell are the brooms that will finally sweep these individuals into the dustbin of history where they belong?

Much has been made of Greenspan’s comment regarding the Iraqi war being about oil recently. It’s interesting that if you look closely at the lexicon - "about oil" - it doesn’t explicitly say much at all. Was the war intended to steal the oil? To get all the oil-based contracts that otherwise would’ve gone to France, Russia and Germany? To keep the shipping lanes open so America’s SUVs can keep humming along? What precisely does "about oil" mean? Not much really, other than emphasizing implicit implications. For Podohertz, the "War on Terror" or, as he likes to call it, WWIV, is a fight between Democracy and Islamofascism; oil, at most, is a sidebar. In this way, he is sticking to the elemental theme of the PNAC.

For instance, he insists:

"America must drain the swamps (Iraq and Iran) from where Islamofascism was bred."

"Reconfigure the political character of that region."

Rely on "the Flypaper strategy of al-Qaeda centering themselves in Iraq and then attacking them there."

"The suicide bombers are a perverse tribute to the Bush Doctrine because they are threatened by the inroads made by democracy."

For more of this astoundingly ignorant analysis see http://www.commentarymagazine.com/c...

Following is an excerpt from the piece listed above:

"...George W. Bush, a man who knows evil when he sees it and who has demonstrated an unfailingly courageous willingness to endure vilification and contumely in setting his face against it. It now remains to be seen whether this President, battered more mercilessly and with less justification than any other in living memory, and weakened politically by the enemies of his policy in the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular, will find it possible to take the only action that can stop Iran from following through on its evil intentions both toward us and toward Israel. As an American and as a Jew, I pray with all my heart that he will."

The main problem with this malarkey is that the starting point for historical review generally begins with the 70s when radicals began bombing Western targets. Having long ago discarded his own radical garb, and, no doubt, his Bob Dylan records, Podhoretz doesn’t want to consider what the animating ideas are behind the radical behavior. In other words, he neglects to appropriately weigh the significance of Blowback.

The complexities that emerged in Egypt, which was tossed about like a football in the Cold War by the U.S. and U.S.S.R., the ideology of Sayyid Qutub who was martyred, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the overall sense of impotence and transgression that most Muslims began to feel beginning in the 60s are all virtually irrelevant to the Neocons. So are the facts that the U.S. forced the Shah on Iran, supported Saddam, meddled in the oil markets, exploited the radicals to fight Communism and then turned its back on them, and peddled enormous amounts of weapons in the Middle East that have subsequently destabilized the area.

Podhoretz et al. may have forgotten such facts, but the Muslims, who were humiliated first by the loss of an empire and then by the indignities of imperialism, haven’t forgotten those unfortunate circumstances. And so far their response, ranging from suicide belts to RPGs and IEDs, has been pathetic yet mostly contained terrorist acts, which are testaments to their sense of outrage and impotence. Yet Podhoretz uses the term, swamp, to demonize not just a rather small group of radicals but to characterize nations and millions of Muslims.

Swamp is a telling metaphor, indicating the profoundly illogical strategy the Neocons are using to pursue their goals. Yes, a swamp can be cleaned out, but seething rage, orthoprax reliance on religiosity, Blowback, and deeply entrenched tribalism, cannot be "cleaned out" by "smart" bombs. Dialogue would help, as would cultural exchange. Why not host a Holocaust event and accentuate for every doubter, particularly Ahmadinejad, the full horrors of WWII? He asked for inquiry; why not give it to him? How are bombs going to reshape the region for the sake of spreading democracy? If democracy represents preemptively bombing Muslim countries, spreading secularity and modernity against the will of most people, demonization, minimal diplomacy, depleted uranium, supporting dictators who rape the masses, then Muslims are going to justifiably ask, Who needs democracy?

There’s another fact that escapes the Neocons, especially Podhoretz. They behave as if they alone have realized how the world should be ruled, and are thus, despite all their propaganda espousing freedom, essentially antidemocratic. And so, to the wary eye of a Muslim, which has been skillfully trained by centuries of ascetic denial and tribal living, they look like sanctimonious assholes. Now if only Americans could see them as they really are and disarm them, then maybe the world could get back to getting along better. Until then, expect to march to the beat of war drums for it’s the only song they know.