The left gets "stirred-up" Zbig-time

Yesterday I posted my reasons why I believe Democrats can't be trusted with national security. As if on cue, my liberal guest-blogger Jeff today provides yet more evidence for my side of the argument over at his own blog, where he lauds as "insightful" an op-ed in the International Herald Tribune by Zbigniew Brzezinski (Jimmy Carter's national security adviser). Zbiggy makes four main points in the op-ed:

1. In the absence of an imminent threat (with the Iranians at least several years away from having a nuclear arsenal), the attack would be a unilateral act of war. If undertaken without formal Congressional declaration, it would be unconstitutional and merit the impeachment of the president. Similarly, if undertaken without the sanction of the UN Security Council either alone by the United States or in complicity with Israel, it would stamp the perpetrator(s) as an international outlaw(s).

I don't recall Zbiggy making a big deal about President Clinton launching the Desert Fox bombing attack against Iraq - surely an "act of war" - without a Congressional declaration. For that matter, there was no Congressional declaration for Zbiggy's own Operation Eagle Claw, the botched mission to rescue American hostages in Iran. If sending armed troops and attack choppers deep into another country's territory to conduct a hostile mission isn't an "act of war", I don't know what is. Does Zbiggy think Clinton and/or Carter should have been impeached?

Neither of the above operations were conducted with the "sanction" of the UNSC, for that matter.

2. Likely Iranian reactions would significantly compound ongoing U.S. difficulties in Iraq and in Afghanistan, perhaps precipitate new violence by Hezbollah in Lebanon, and in all probability cause the United States to become bogged down in regional violence for a decade or more to come. Iran is a country of some 70 million people and a conflict with it would make the misadventure in Iraq look trivial.

Er, Zbiggy, Iran is already supporting radical elements in the region - will passivity in the face of their increasingly bellicose threats cause them to scale back that support, or embolden them to become even more aggressive?

While we're on the subject, Zbiggy has some nerve pontificating about our "difficulties" in Afghanistan, given that he has bragged about being the architect of a U.S. plan to "give the USSR its Vietnam war" (thereby giving the Afghans years of horrendous misery), and supporting the Islamic radicals that later became the Taliban. Zbiggy in 1998 (emphasis mine):

"What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"

Brilliant, Zbiggy. What's to fear from some "stirred-up" Jihadist butchers? A mere four weeks after Brzezinski made this statement, Bin Laden issued his famous fatwa ordering all Muslims to "kill the Americans".

3. Oil prices would climb steeply, especially if the Iranians cut their production and seek to disrupt the flow of oil from the nearby Saudi oil fields. The world economy would be severely impacted, with America blamed for it. Note that oil prices have already shot above $70 per barrel, in part because of fears of a U.S./Iran clash.

Is Zbiggy actually saying defense policy should be formulated based upon the price of gas at the pump? And here's a newsflash, fella - Americans already get "blamed" for everything under the sun.

4. America would become an even more likely target of terrorism, with much of the world concluding that America's support for Israel is itself a major cause of the rise in terrorism. America would become more isolated and thus more vulnerable while prospects for an eventual regional accommodation between Israel and its neighbors would be ever more remote.

Ok, so the Islamic radicals who now completely hate us will really-really-really hate us if we strike Iran. It's true that Iran's government will likely respond with terrorism, since they are a terror-sponsoring state. But better to have a terror-sponsoring state without nukes than one with nukes, I say. Whether Israel will reaches a "regional accommodation" with its neighbors will be a moot point if Israel becomes a smoking radioactive hole in the ground.

I must thank Jeff for alerting me to the Brzezinski piece. The fact that leftists across the blogosphere are praising Zbiggy's simple-minded, ahistorical analysis only further reinforces my view that today's liberals should not - must not - be given authority over our national defense policy.