Assumptions

I tend to assume certain things about you, Gentle Reader, when I select items to write about, link to, or otherwise comment upon here at EIP. One of my key assumptions is you read a lot of the same stuff I do, so pointing you to, say Michael Yon’s place, would be redundant. Chances are you’ve either already been to those places before you came here, or you’re going there in short order.

That said, it never hurts to remember the ol’ saw about assumptions…the one about how they tend to make an “ass” out of “u” and “i.” So, in that spirit, I’ll simply point out the obvious, something I’m quite sure you know already: there’s no finer reporting coming out of Iraq, specifically on Operations Phantom Thunder and Arrowhead Ripper, than that provided by Yon and Bill Roggio. They’re daily reads for YrHmblScrb. And I assume they are for you, too.

I’ve been noticing a lot of back-and-forth of late between leftie and right-of-center blogs concerning Iran. The dominant line of thinking on the Left is “don’t let Chimpy McHalliburton talk us into another war like he did last time,” coupled with (to a lesser extent) “Iran poses no threat to us,” followed up by “what’s wrong with Iran having nukes? WE have ‘em…” and so on. Classic denial, in other words. The Left needs to pay more attention, or at least begin thinking along the lines of “what if Ahmadinejad really means what he’s saying?” The latter IS possible, ya know.

A good place for the Left to begin reading would be this article in today’s WSJ. I quote, in part:

The apparent meaning of all of this pointless provocation and bullying is that the axis of radicals--Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah--is feeling its oats. In part its aim is to intimidate the rest of us, in part it is merely enjoying flexing its muscles. It believes that its side has defeated America in Iraq, and Israel in Gaza and Lebanon. Mr. Ahmadinejad recently claimed that the West has already begun to "surrender," and he gloated that " final victory . . . is near." It is this bravado that bodes war.

A large portion of modern wars erupted because aggressive tyrannies believed that their democratic opponents were soft and weak. Often democracies have fed such beliefs by their own flaccid behavior. Hitler's contempt for America, stoked by the policy of appeasement, is a familiar story. But there are many others. North Korea invaded South Korea after Secretary of State Dean Acheson declared that Korea lay beyond our "defense perimeter." Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait after our ambassador assured him that America does not intervene in quarrels among Arabs. Imperial Germany launched World War I, encouraged by Great Britain's open reluctance to get involved. Nasser brought on the 1967 Six Day War, thinking that he could extort some concessions from Israel by rattling his sword.

Democracies, it is now well established, do not go to war with each other. But they often get into wars with non-democracies. Overwhelmingly the non-democracy starts the war; nonetheless, in the vast majority of cases, it is the democratic side that wins. In other words, dictators consistently underestimate the strength of democracies, and democracies provoke war through their love of peace, which the dictators mistake for weakness.

It’s the signal failure of the Left: they’re too damned good for their…our… own good. The inability to see evil, and evil intent, simply because you believe in your heart of hearts that all men want the same things…peace, love, and understanding…is a tragic and potentially lethal flaw. It continues to amaze me that otherwise rational people cannot recognize a mortal threat even as it screams out its hatred for you and all you stand for.

I really don’t get it.

Today’s Pic: A brightly lit shop in Albuquerque’s Old Town, at sunset.

January, 2004.

And now, Gentle Reader, I intend to take the remainder of this morning’s coffee and a portion of a Spanish Rosada out on the verandah. Before it gets too danged hot to do anything outside…