Our Hell

By Crispin Sartwell

A month after President Bush warned that the United States hasn't ruled out military action against Iran, President Mohammed Khatami responded Thursday that his country would turn into a "scorching hell" for any possible attackers.

AP, February 10, 2005

This [North Koreaπs announcement that it has nuclear weapons] is a crisis from hell.

The Australian, February 11, 2005

The price that weπre paying for our misbegotten misadventure in Iraq is becoming sickeningly clear.

The Bush administration invaded Iraq not because it believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, but precisely because it believed that he did not. The victory would be easy, without great cost in casualties. And it would show the world our might and the new aggressiveness and resolve with which we would wield it.

Instead we ended up with a huge and likely more or less permanent military commitment, with a constant trickle of casualties and a budget-destroying investment of resources.

All of that can only embolden countries such as Iran and North Korea, not to speak of Sudan and Syria. The chances that we will actually take any military action against any of these repulsive and ambitious regimes is extremely slim.

We simply do not have the assets to threaten any of them, much less all of them simultaneously. The occupation of Iraq has already extended our military resources to the breaking point. And the American government is broke. It is in no position to bring new resources to bear.

Even more significantly, The U.S. does not have the appetite to confront these regimes militarily, and they know it. Whatever Rice, Wolfowitz, or Cheney say in public, they have to be chastened: they expected a much easier long-term process in Iraq. Unless they are truly megalomaniacs, they understand now the costs and drawbacks of the attempt at world domination for which neo-conservatives provided the ideology.

They still sound bellicose. But if they have a shred of rationality remaining, they cannot be seriously contemplating new invasions. And they certainly canπt be contemplating military confrontations with Iran or North Korea, which are far, far better armed than Iraq, which have functioning militaries and difficult terrain. The American death toll in Iraq might be matched in a single day ≠ or single moment - on the way to Pyongyang.

And however enthusiastic the American people are about the Bush administration, they are deeply divided about Iraq, and have been sagging since the first days. The administration cannot believe that it has a mandate to attack Iran. If they proceed without public support, they will drive the American people into the streets or at least into the arms of Howard Dean.

In short, the war in Iraq has left us without the ability to face much more serious situations. It has sapped our resources and our will to the point at which we are powerless in the face of actual terrorist states and emerging nuclear threats.

And these countries understand that perfectly: they are jumping on the situation with total enthusiasm. Iraq and North Korea know that we will negotiate, because we canπt attack. And they understand that the more weapons they have - the bigger the threat they present - the more leverage they will have in those negotiations.

We have created a structure of rewards that encourages vicious regimes all over the world to arm themselves as quickly as possible.

Because we canπt attack, we can be blackmailed.

There are many reasons why the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea, but they all pale in comparison with the fact that, far from showing our power, Iraq has made our impotence completely apparent.

Hell is glee in the eyes of Kim Jong-Il.