Trying to find more information last year about Robert Pape's book on suicide terrorism,
Dying to Win, I came upon an interview with Mr. Pape at
The American Conservative Magazine.
After spending several years convinced that normal conservatives had been replaced by creatures hatched from pods, it was a relief. The founders of AmConMag are as appalled at Bush administration policies as I am. From their mission statement:
Today the United States has no shortage of magazines that would call their orientation, and be described by others as, "conservative." Add the conservative dominance of talk radio, the popularity of several talented right of-center television commentators, the current Republican majority in the House, and the Bush presidency, and one could argue that conservative ideas have as much resonance as they have ever had.
And yet there is a great, often unarticulated discomfort in the ranks of many who considered themselves conservative during the past few decades.A friend of ours recently told of an encounter with one of his colleagues."You're a conservative," the colleague said--"so you must agree with Paul Wolfowitz that we should attack Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and all those places."
Well, no. Not all conservatives do agree that the United States should engage--for reasons that hardly touch America's own vital interests --in an open-ended war against much of the Arab and Muslim world.
Ever since, I check in with them from time to time. AmConMag team Scott McConnell, Pat Buchanan and Taki Theodoracopulos are not among the rats currently jumping the sinking ship. They established themselves as a dissenting voice in 2002 when it became apparent that a war of aggression was plotted against Iraq--and they were marginalized for it. AmConMag also been speaking out against potential U.S. aggression in Iran. From their "Deep Background" feature last August:
In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons...As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.
This inspired me to more LTEs on the subject, combined with Robert McNamara's excellent article, "Apocalypse Soon" at Foreign Policy.com. I must say, I enjoy being able to cite conservative sources to bolster my views (not that I'm calling McNamara one). Once I even quoted Patrick Buchanan in one of my letters.
But if the "military option" is a preventive war on Iran, let us, at least this time, consider beforehand the costs and consequences. With its cruise-missile and smart-bomb bins refilled, the U.S. could effect the nuclear castration of the mullahs in 48 hours. The Iranian air force and navy would be an afternoon's work. But all of Iran's Shahab missiles would likely be fired at U.S. bases and Israel, to the delight of the Arab and Islamic street, widening the war.
And how might Tehran respond? Iranian volunteers pouring into Iraq inciting the Shia to attack U.S. troops. The Green Zone turned into Fort Apache. A debacle, unless we send in more troops. Iranian oil exports halted. Terror attacks on U.S. installations and Gulf allies. Silkworm missiles fired at tankers. Oil at $100-$200 a barrel. A worldwide depression. That's for openers.
Contributors to AmConMag include people like Robert Dreyfus and Georgie Ann Geyer. It is strongest in its coverage of foreign policy, corruption and current fiscal irresponsibility. Roll your eyes at the abortion and immigration story headlines if you must, and just skip 'em. This is about finding common ground where we can, on some of our most pressing priorities.
Today I can't resist sharing this article from AmConMag founder Taki Theodoracopulos (great bio here.) Published in the July 3 issue, it's called "Compensating with a Yacht" and promotes energy conservation. Really.
As everyone who has ever been on the French Riviera knows, the bigger and more polluting the yacht, the shorter, more vulgar, and greedier the owner. Last month, I went to the Cannes film festival on my boat, and before anyone cries foul, my yacht may be large, but it's a sailing boat with a tiny engine, hence I pollute as little as a jet ski, if that.
It is one of the anomalies of yachting that as new mega-yachts--I refer to them as refrigerators on steroids--become stereotypical, everyone seems to admire the look of boats from the Edwardian era. Mine is a replica of a 1920s beauty, with an all-black steel hull, wooden masts, and mahogany decks and superstructure. To my delight, some of the owners of ugly, humongous stinkpots wave as I sail by and make thumbs-up signs.
What I'd like to know is if they know a beautiful thing when they see it, why do they choose to build big and ugly?Ah, but that's human nature, you'll say. Big is beautiful: just look at General Motors. Well, that's the last thing I wish to look at, as no one who is associated with the Hummer--9 mpg--should be mentioned in the same breath with classic sailing boats. (If one has to mention the Hummer, it should be in the same breath with the neocons.) Don't get me wrong. As a libertarian-conservative, I believe I have no right to dictate to anyone what his yacht should look like as long as his boat does not pollute the water I swim in and the air I breathe.
Having said that, let's take the case of Mr. Larry Ellison, whose boat, Rising Sun, blocked half the bay in front of the Carlton Hotel and destroyed any illusion one might have about boats being in harmony with the sea. The Oracle boss likes to win, as they say, but if Rising Sun is a victory, so is our presence in Iraq. At 453 feet long, it just beats out in length Octopus, which is 414 feet long and is owned by Paul Allen of Microsoft fame. Rising Sun is extremely ugly and has no redeeming value except showing off--my thing is bigger than yours.
--snip--
Meanwhile, GM, Ford, and Daimler-Chrysler buy votes in Congress to keep the stooges from imposing improved mileage standards. No president or politician dares to go after them the way they went after Saddam.
Taki suggests that Mr. Ellison should consider alleviating his insecurity with a penis enhancement. Honestly, it's all I can do to keep from reprinting the whole article here. He promises a list of "10 Commandments" on how to save our planet in his next article.
There will be nothing too green, scary, or hysterical. Just ten ways every one of us can make a difference for our grandchildren and their children in the future.
I'm looking forward to it.
[Cross-posted at SoapBlox-Chicago]