Norman Podhoretz on World War IV

The Wall Street Journal recently published a review of Norman Podhoretz's new book, "World War IV," by Christopher Willcox.

It's a clear review of an obviously riveting, declarative book. Referring to the 1945-1998 period of cold war as WW III, Podhoretz identifies the current era as a world war with terrorism.

He questions whether America has the will to win, let alone survive, this war. If there's a difference.

Podhoretz unequivocally backs President Bush in the belief that this is a defining, global war- not a series of skirmishes with relatively insignificant bands of local or regional terrorists.

This quote from the review pretty much sums up Podhoretz's views,

"Mr. Podhoretz handles the swift radicalization of top Democrats with gusto, quoting most of them as ferocious Saddam critics before the invasion and, as the war became difficult, newly ferocious critics of the U.S. invasion. Teddy Kennedy leaves the rails completely when he reacts to the serious abuses at Abu Ghraib prison by declaring on the Senate floor that "the torture chamber of Saddam Hussein has been reopened under new management -- American management."

It is precisely such rhetoric, and the moral-equivalence reasoning behind it, that makes it especially appropriate to remember Whittaker Chambers's Cold War doubts about the West's capacity to defend itself. Mr. Podhoretz believes that the West may face an even more formidable foe today. This time, it lurks in shadowy networks of oil-enabled jihadists, mullahs and despots who are at war with modernity and can count on the support of millions of militant Islamists. If such people succeed in getting their hands on weapons of mass destruction, they will surely use them.

Pre-emption may thus turn out to be a compelling option for whoever wins the presidency in 2008. If so, the Bush Doctrine -- like Harry Truman's earlier doctrine of containment -- will have a longer life than its critics imagine. And, yes, Mr. Podhoretz reminds us, Harry Truman had some pretty lousy poll numbers when he left office, too. "

And I loved this quote used to describe the liberal Democratic position on the war on terror,

"Here is hapless John Kerry running for president two years after 9/11: "We have to get back to the place where we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance. As a former law enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life."

I've never actually read any of Podhoretz's books. Only occasional articles. But I know I follow in his ideological footsteps. This is one of his books which I will likely buy, read, and treasure.

The Iranian Nuclear Threat

A week ago, in the Friday edition of the Wall Street Journal, Arthur Herman wrote a very descriptive review of Michael Ledeen's book, "The Iranian Time Bomb."

What we learn from this article is that Mr. Ledeen's book provides us with evidence of the shocking decline of Iran's economy. And that the country's nuclear weapons program is no longer a comforting decade, or even five years from fruition, but, rather, possibly as close as two years to producing a working device.

From the evidence, Iran is to be taken seriously as both a regional and, consequently, due to the region affected, global threat.

Ledeen personally prefers diplomacy and funding of those who would overthrow Iran's government, to military action by the US and its Western allies. While that's not a moot point, for me, the more interesting information in the article reviewing the book is how tenuous Iran's own supply of gasoline is. They have virtually zero refining capacity, so any confrontation in which they attempted to shut down the Straits of Hormuz and their own oil shipments, would rapidly drain their own gasoline supplies faster than the world would be affected by a shortage of crude oil.

The nuclear weapons threat, of course, makes the potential to force such a standoff earlier, rather than later, all the more pressing.

Mr. Herman, the reviewer, notes Ledeen's own flip-flop on the diplomacy vs. aggression question. Too, he notes that few revolutions have occurred without a foreign military presence causing the fall of the unpopular, current regime.

I found the review to be very eye-opening, particularly as the US, thanks to our fortuitous presence in Iraq, has troops, aircraft, naval and logistical assets at hand in the region, should armed intervention in Iran be appropriate within the next year or so.