McCarthy: wage a real war, or get out

In another thoughtful article, Andrew McCarthy at NRO argues that in our detour into Iraqi nation-building which turned into a desperate effort at Iraqi nation-salvaging, we forgot the larger purpose of the war, which was to protect America and its allies from radical Islam. Iran is threatening to destroy Israel, Pakistan has made a treaty with the Taliban, Afghanistan is losing to Al Qaeda, the Saudis are still exporting jihadism, and all we in America talk about is the need to “win” in Iraq, when in fact we have no concept of “winning” there other than to pass the baton to the Iraqis. McCarthy apparently believes in a wider war, against several Muslim powers at the same time, all of which, he says, are already at war with us, whether we recognize it or not. But, he continues,

[i]f we’re shrinking from the greater war, of course our troops shouldn’t be sitting ducks in Iraq. If we’re not going to turn them loose against the forces that most threaten them, as well as the rest of us, of course we should get them out of there.

I had an interesting e-mail exchange with Mr. McCarthy a couple of weeks ago on these questions and will post it soon. The main issue that seemed to emerge between us was, should we fight a war against (radical) Islam, or should we disengage from Islam?

- end of initial entry -

David B. writes:

Andrew McCarthy wants to fight a “Wider War.” Is he aware that the U.S. military isn’t that large and is overextended now? Invading several more countries as war proponents have long advocated will eventually lead to a military disaster.

The main result of fighting wars in the Middle East will be loads of Muslims coming to this country as I have said for years. This is why I favor Disengagement.

LA replies:

Some wars may be simply necessary, particularly with Iran. There was a very interesting article by Arthur Herman in the November Commentary laying out a strategy for destroying Iran’s ability to choke off the Straits of Hormuz so that they could not stop world oil shipments, which is an ever-present threat in addition to their nuclear threat, even as we destroy their oil industry and block their oil shipments, and substantially degrade their nuclear capability, and all of this without a land invasion. The piece is no longer online but I recommend it. This is not a “neocon” article. Herman is talking about a real danger the world faces and presenting a plausible-sounding way of meeting it.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 07, 2006 04:52 PM | Send