Daniel Larison writes:
This Michael Ledeen column
from last week is amazingly confused and incoherent:
There’s an alliance plotting against
us, bound together by two radical views of the world that share a profound,
fundamental hatred of us.
If they win, it’s hell to pay, because then we will be attacked directly and often, and we will be faced with only two options, winning or losing.
If they win, it’s hell to pay, because then we will be attacked directly and often, and we will be faced with only two options, winning or losing.
That’s the bad news. The good news is
that they’re divided, and slaughtering each other.
It must be a very strange alliance if its members are slaughtering one
another. That would almost suggest that there is no alliance at all, and that
it is just the product of someone’s fevered imagination.
This is only one of several glaring problems with Ledeen’s alarmist fear of
“a global alliance of radical leftists and radical Islamists,” but it is most
important flaw.
Belief in such a “global alliance” is a forced attempt to lump together
various authoritarian regimes and Islamist groups in order to exaggerate the
threats from all of them, and it suffers from all the same flaws as such
nonsense ideas as “Islamofascism”
and “the
authoritarian axis.”
It treats disparate and sometimes diametrically, violently opposed groups as
if they were on the same “side” in a global conflict against us, when the
reality is that their interests are often at odds.
It is not even possible that this “alliance” can win, because its supposed
members aren’t all seeking the same goals and don’t cooperate with one another
to achieve them.
The only thing linking them together is that they are at odds
with the U.S. over issues specific to them in their respective regions of the
world, but any cooperation between them is typically opportunistic and quite
limited.
The idea that the U.S. is opposed by such an “alliance” is the result of
constant and absurd threat inflation combined with a misguided yearning for a
titanic global struggle against a major foe, and it should be flatly rejected
by anyone who wants a foreign policy dedicated to securing the interests of the
United States.
Or, indeed to securing the interests of the United Kingdom.
No comments:
Post a Comment