Wishful Thinking

An example of wishful thinking:

http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/16-08/st_essay

Starting off grounded in fact about the reasons why the USSR, the US and China didn't blow the world to bits due to the deterrent of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), Jonathan Stevenson starts veering off into fantasy land by the end of the first paragraph:

"Threaten to launch an apocalyptic nuclear retaliation...and likely would even deter Iran."

Now, I'm no foreign policy expert, but I think I can safely say that the regime in Tehran is not what you would call a"rational actor". Every inducement, sanction and pressure from the UN has only fast-tracked it's nuclear ambitions further.

The rest of the article is essentially a coded Obama puff piece:

"Whoever wins the White House in November should take the opportunity to give US foreign policy a makeover,"

which candidate is likely to give the US foreign policy a "makeover"?

"the path is clear:"

"creative thinking.."

"A bolder strategy, driven by ideas..."

"A new tone in Washington..."

Cut, paste, wash, repeat from any of Obama's speeches. And I haven't even heard that many!

"need to acknowledge that radicalism remains highly appealing — thanks in part to the Bush administration"

The mandatory slagging of the Bush Administration whilst completely ignoring the larger conflict that has been waged against the US (and the West) by the Islamists since 1979 and earlier. The sneering implication that in responding to attacks, the US should have done what....talk about Change?

And now he completes his trip to la-la land with the following para.

"Of course, no official US site should sing the praises of Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood. But recognizing that such organizations have gained some legitimacy by participating in nonviolent politics would signal to potential recruits that there's an effective and honorable third way between capitulation and terrorism."

There, in a nutshell, is the exactly what is wrong with the approach of every Western government trying to grapple with this issue. The argument that "such organizations have gained some legitimacy by participating in nonviolent politics" is so deluded that it beggars belief. As if participation in non-violent politics makes any group worthy of political engagement, when the majority of their activities involve violence , the founding charter of one is based on the future genocide of a race, and they are incapable of seeing the world through anything other than a religious prism where non-believers deserve death for non-believing.

"But recognizing that such organizations have gained some legitimacy"

Just because these organizations have "legitimacy" although I think the word he was searching for there was "popularity", does not mean these groups are moral, rational or justified. They are, in fact the most prominent actors of the most de-civilising force at the moment.

It is extremely depressing to note that the author is a professor of strategic studies at the US Naval War College.