The problem I have with Podhoretz comes down to the same reason I detest bush. He does not think things thru. Or at a minimum does not re-evaluate his decisions when experts who are in a position to know contradict some of his thesis.

It's different in bush's case as the stories have come out about the degree his handlers go to make sure news he doesn't want to hear is kept away from him. And this also appears to be the way gulliani operates.

I find a link I was looking for last nite before I left work, but can't find it again to post here. In this particular case with Podhoretz, it appears he is not listening to military experts. The link I found included many speaking out about war with Iran. In particular was a comment from a general who participated in Pentagon war simulations involving Iran. And all the simulations turned out horrible.

Basically the same thing that happened with Iraq. Pentagon planners said this is what we need to fight in Iraq. And the admin totally ignored them. I saw a documentary on the runup to Iraq. And it pointed out how all the generals had opposing views to strategy with rumsfeld. Eventually the neocons found some colonel who had been preaching his ideas for operating with a small military for a while. So one of the final acts of the cons before war, was to trot out this colonel in front of congress as prove of rumsfeld theory on number of troops needed for Iraq.

>>Hi Charles :)
>>>>I did not try to make 'characterisation' I simply overreacted :)
>>>>But what he wrote in it really does not make any sense to me.
>>
>>>I think he goes to far in some ways, but his points that do make sense :
>>>
>>>"But why single out England? If anything, much more, and worse, has been going on in other European countries, including France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Denmark, and the Netherlands. All of these countries have large and growing Muslim populations demanding that their religious values and sensibilities be accommodated at the expense of the traditional values of the West, and even in some instances of the law. Yet rather than insisting that, like all immigrant groups before them, they assimilate to Western norms, almost all European politicians have been cravenly giving in to the Muslims’ outrageous demands."
>>>
>>>There is no question that there is a culture clash in Europe that Western Culture is not winning because the very people who have complete contempt for Western Culture are using that culture's greatest strengths to destroy it. ( very much in the spirit of Stalin's "usefull idiots" )
>>
>>Well that is nature of democracy. Great numbers means political rights.
>>Some European countries have great numbers of muslims and they naturally
>>seek their rights like everbody else.
>>What Podhoretz & Co are getting wrong, is that Great majority of those European muslims are simple hardworking people that have nothing to do with what he coins 'Islamofashisam'. They are not in Europe and elsewhere as 'agents' sent inn ahead of battle for Islamisation of the entire world (with ultimate intention to destroy Israel as this guy probably imagines) ,
>>but simply came there to live and work in peace and create prosperity
>>for their families.
>>Admitedly there are some lynatics/frieks/hoodloms but far away from what is being painted as a picture.
>>
>>I also believe that European countries should insist not on assimilation
>>but on integration into society and full respect of European values.
>>Muslims can't have their 'enclaves' in law etc, they have to adhere to rules like everybody else.
>>
>
>But that is exactly the point. The moslems who have immigrated to Europe to become Europeans ( of Islamic faith ) are not at all a problem. That is true of most Moslems in Europe and the vast majority of Moslems in America.
>
>But remember 90% of support to mosques in Europe and the US comes from Wahabbis and the creed is highly Salafi. And they have a very clear mission. Finsbury Park in London is a pretty good example.
>
>The separatist dogma being preached in the wahabbi funded mosques is really some pretty radical stuff and it is getting a lot more traction than it should because of the intimidation factor and the huge amounts of money - primarily from Saudis - that is funding it.
>
>It is the 'enclave' mentality that is a threat. Western society does not protect religious sensibilities from offense. When journalists, cartoonists or writers have to live in fear of fatwas it cannot be tolerated.
>
>The ironic part is that there is an even more puritanical strain - the takfiri - represented by people like Zawahiri - who think the Saudi wahabbis have lost their way for making accomodation with the house of Saud and who reserve the right of of takfir - the 'excommunication' of apostate Moslems ( making them fair game to be killed ) The war they wage is not just against Western society but against Moslems who are willing to assimilate into Western society or to participate in a society that involves things like voting. Whether or not you refer to them as "Islamofascists" or just Puritans, they are a real force.
>
>The mullahs in Iran represent the Shi'ite end of all this, but there are definitely factions there that see the millenium as imminent. They scare me just as much as folks who expect The Rapture real soon now.
>
>I have a great deal of respect for Islam. But we've seen Puritan movements before. I would not want to see Oliver Cromwell or Ferdinand and Isabella with nukes.
>
>>
>>>
>>>This quote from Bernard Lewis is in the article and makes perfectly good sense :
>>>"MAD, mutual assured destruction, [was effective] right through the cold war. Both sides had nuclear weapons. Neither side used them, because both sides knew the other would retaliate in kind. This will not work with a religious fanatic [like Ahmadinejad]. For him, mutual assured destruction is not a deterrent, it is an inducement. We know already that [Iran’s leaders] do not give a damn about killing their own people in great numbers. We have seen it again and again. In the final scenario, and this applies all the more strongly if they kill large numbers of their own people, they are doing them a favor. They are giving them a quick free pass to heaven and all its delights."
>>>
>>>The quotes from Khomeini and Rafsanjani that follow it in the article are pretty chilling as well.
>>>
>>>My point is that whether or not you disagree with Podhoretz's conclusions, it is just political fist-pumping to kiss the whole thing off as nonsense. He raises questions that need to be asked. If someone has a different conclusion then fine, discuss it in an intelligent way.
>>
>>Try with this; (closing statement on his WSJ article)
>>Quote:
>>'...Not so 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.'
>>
>>[ No comment! ]
>
>And I would agree with you that this is much more strident than it needs to be - though I don't doubt Podhoretz means it sincerely. I do think Bush is vilified more often as a knee-jerk reaction than on substance and I admire his ability to at least understand security is a serious issue, but I think there is much to criticise in his implementation of pretty much of everything that has been done since Afghanistan.
>
>I also agree that while Podhoretz recognizes the destabilizing and unpredicatble nature of military action against Iran he doesn't seem to give it enough weight and I think he comes to the wrong conclusion as a result.
>
>But like the invasion of Iraq, one of the factors that has to be considered is that there are other players in the region who will do what they think is necessary for survival.
>
>>
>>I can agree that more then just a caution is necessary to save us from nuclear catastrophies. There are ways to neutralise nuclear threat comming from Iran, but that does not include bombing them. Quiet opposite.
>>
>>Answer is to stop war and gradually calm down whole region
>>
>>I believe that if situation and climate in the region was different, then Iran could be made to abolish it's nuclear program though series of high summit open talks with them.
>>But that would include threating them with due respect, respect their borders and state, stop military provocations, offer economic incentives,
>>compromise solutions (Russia had some proposals) etc.
>>But if you believe they are madman (as this guy advocates), threat them as madman, insist on whole world threating them as madman - then not meny things are possible then eventual confrontation with devastationg consequences.
>>
>
>You may be right - though I do think the current government in Iran is not going to be responsive to the kind of rational analysis that will be required. They really don't see a downside to having nuclear weapons and I do believe that is their firm intention. I do not believe for one minute they only want nuclear power for peaceful purposes - do you ?
>
>
>>
>>>And I haven't heard any of the bloggers that dismiss Podhoretz as a madman talk about what they want to do when Israel takes out the Iranian nuclear program. Did you notice the strike in Syria up on the Turkish border?
>>
>>Yes I read about it. Any scoupe what a heck was it ?!?
>>How come Syrians were silent about it ?
>>
>
>A couple of possibilities - one of which could be the beginnings of a reactor.
>
>The other being related to all the transport from Iraq into Syria just before the US invaded.
>
>Remember, the most important thing about intelligence is not just knowing, but the other side not knowing that you know until you can use the information. I think the Syria strike is a much more interesting story than people realize. Just a guess on my part, but one that is based on some small knowledge of how people in certain professions think.
>
>>>
>>>They aren't kidding.
>>I know.
>
>As do the Syrians and the Iranians. The Iranian nuclear stuff isn't in bunkers because they are afraid they'll be negotiated away, and it isn't the Americans they are primarily worried about.
>
>As I've said before, I think a lot of Israeli R&D over the last 20 years has gone into bunker-busters. If I were working in one of those facilities in Iran I would be very sure my health insurance was paid up.