Author Archives: Ron Lipsman

How Did Santorum Become the Last Mole Standing?,

An examination of how, unexpectedly, Rick Santorum became the last threat to Mitt Romney’s acquisition of the Republican presidential nomination

 

In a previous post in this blog in November, 2011, the process of selecting a Republican presidential candidate to oppose Barack Obama was described as a combination of American Idol and Whack-a-Mole. The contestants compete in preliminary popularity rounds and the people vote via opinion polls. The last idol standing will be the nominee. But during the process, different candidates pop their heads out of their holes, only to be whacked back down by the media. It’s enough to make one pine for smoke-filled rooms.

The “mole” who poked his head out of his hole in November was Newt Gingrich. In fact, at the time, Newt looked to be the last non-Romney mole. But Newt was not only whacked back into his hole by the media; he was literally bludgeoned down into it by a surprisingly vicious and remarkably effective attack by Romney and his Super PAC.

According to the narrative in the article, that should have been the end of the nomination story. Previously whacked moles (Pawlenty, Cain, Bachmann, Perry) had been erased from the chase and the other moles (Paul, Santorum, Huntsman, Johnson) were deemed to be of such minor importance that they could be safely ignored. The latter assessment turned out to be accurate for Huntsman and Johnson, and in the end for Paul also – but somehow, in a development that was unforeseen, and as yet unexplained, Rick Santorum morphed into a viable mole and now represents the only meaningful challenger to Romney. How did this come about? Can Santorum really defeat Romney? And if so, what does it portend for a Santorum-Obama contest?

Most pundits did not foresee the emergence of Santorum as a major candidate for the GOP nomination. The fact that he was slaughtered in a swing state (Pennsylvania) in his last Senate run seemed enough to disqualify him from serious consideration. But on top of that there were: his whiny personality; his betrayal of the bona fide conservative Toomey in favor of the turncoat Specter; his undistinguished record in the Senate; his lack of executive experience; and his views on social issues – which, while perhaps more mainstream than portrayed by the media, were often stated in an extreme fashion that made him anathema to moderate voters. His placement at the end of the line in candidate debates seemed appropriate and it was expected that he would disappear from the scene in short order.

But he didn’t. Why? Here are five reasons:

  1. Santorum had the accidental good fortune to be hidden from – and therefore immune to – the mudslinging by his fellow candidates. While Romney was bashing Gingrich, and Perry was trashing Romney and everyone was marginalizing Paul, no one was paying any attention to poor Rick. So while he was not gaining any traction, he was also not driven from the race. Huntsman and Johnson were similarly ignored. But Johnson was never a serious candidate. And his views were already covered by the better known Paul. Huntsman might have considered himself a serious candidate, but virtually no one else did. His social views were far too liberal, his financial acumen was eclipsed by Romney’s and the taint of working for Obama rendered him totally unacceptable.
  2. Santorum was ignored not only by his fellow candidates, but also by the media. The mainstream media concentrated on diminishing anyone that it feared might pose a threat to Obama (including Romney, Gingrich, Perry and, to a lesser extent, Cain and Bachmann). But the media didn’t see Santorum as a cause for worry (because he clearly could not get the nomination), so they ignored him. Again, this did nothing to promote Rick’s candidacy, but it also did nothing to scuttle it.
  3. Santorum benefitted from the fact that the overall field was weak. Individuals that many thought might make the most formidable candidates (Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Haley Barbour, and even Donald Trump or Sarah Palin or General Petraeus) chose not to run. What remained was considered a not terribly distinguished field. Thus Santorum did not suffer by comparison.
  4. The leading candidate could not close the deal. This notion has been well covered – Mitt Romney did not generate much enthusiasm among hardcore conservatives. Therefore, despite his money and organization, he was not able to run away with the nomination. This left the door open for others, like Santorum, to hang around.
  5. Two new features of the nomination process helped Santorum: (i) proportional selection of delegates – which guaranteed a protracted contest; and (ii) the existence of Super PACs, which enabled a small number of wealthy donors to keep a candidacy afloat.

Even though the overall field was weak, there were three – perhaps four – candidates with the requisite credentials that should have banished Santorum to the sidelines long ago: Romney, Perry, Pawlenty and perhaps Gingrich. The first three had robust executive experience, a successful record as such, adequate backing and a reasonable personality. Gingrich is less well-endowed with these qualities, but as the debates revealed, he exhibits exceptional intelligence and creativity. However, Gingrich is also undisciplined and quixotic. Furthermore, Perry’s performance at the debates was so horrible that he completely disqualified himself; and Pawlenty didn’t do much better as he came across as small-minded and mean-spirited. It’s not surprising that Cain and Bachmann are gone – they were not serious candidates, and although each had a brief moment in the sun, neither had a path to the nomination. Paul, who represents the roughly 10% (perhaps less) of the electorate that is libertarian, is trolling for delegates in the hope of having some influence on the nominee and/or platform at the convention. His marginalization is appropriate. And as for Romney, just about everything has been said about his inability to quickly seal the deal – for reasons that are well known.

So the GOP is left with the last non-Romney – whiny, unaccomplished Rick Santorum. He has no executive experience, a less than endearing personality, no sterling political accomplishments in his résumé and is easily painted as an extreme social conservative. Romney will probably eventually prevail – his Illinois victory this week is more of a harbinger than Santorum’s two southern victories last week. But if Rick somehow does manage to secure the nomination, it will be a calamity – for the GOP and for the nation. Not only will he lose to Obama, he could jeopardize GOP control of the House and enable a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate. A second administration with the same parameters as in Obama’s first two years could have dire consequences for America: skyrocketing taxes and spending, Greece-like deficits and debt, Obamacare fully implemented, Cap & Trade, and so much more – gigantic steps toward converting America from a freedom-loving republic into a collectivist, Euro welfare state, impotent in foreign affairs and slavishly dependent on an increasingly tyrannical federal government at home.

Romney is no Reagan. But he is conservative America’s best chance to defeat Obama. And even if he doesn‘t, the ticket he will lead should retain enough handles on the government to forestall the nightmares outlined above and give traditional America some reason to hang on for a while longer until a Reagan-like savior finally appears.
______
This post also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative at:

Netanyahu’s Existential Decision

On Netanyahu’s fateful choice, and the monumental consequences — whichever way he decides.

For the fourth time in Israel’s relatively brief existence, its Prime Minister is faced with an existential choice. Anyone who is paying attention recognizes that Benjamin Netanyahu is confronted with the agonizing decision whether to launch a pre-emptive military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The threats to Israel, to Iran, indeed to virtually the entire world posed by the consequences of his decision are staggering. Depending upon the outcome of an Israeli strike – should it occur – the consequences could include:

  • Tens of thousands of missiles (launched by Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran itself) raining down upon all of Israel, resulting in calamitous destruction and death.
  • The closing of the Straits of Hormuz and a confrontation between Iran and the US that could easily escalate into a broader war engaging many nations.
  • Widespread acts of terror against unknown Western targets, conceivably involving weapons of mass destruction.
  • The destabilization of the Iranian regime leading to revolution and foment all over the Middle East.
  • An abrogation by the Obama administration of the historic alliance between Israel and the US, resulting in the total isolation of Israel – which might tempt its numerous enemies to contemplate a massive frontal assault that Israel could repel only by the use of its nuclear arsenal.
  • Or something worse.

However, should Israel choose not to attack, the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran might have equally cataclysmic consequences:

  • A nuclear attack by Iran on Israel, either by ballistic missiles or via a dirty bomb, terror approach.
  • The initiation of a massive nuclear arms race all over the Middle East.
  • Iran achieves a hegemonic domination of the region based on its nuclear prowess.
  • Iran routinely applies nuclear threats and intimidation to destabilize or overthrow any region in the region that it finds offensive.
  • Israel, horrified at one or more of the above, decides to preemptively attack Iran – even though the consequences of the bombing of “online” facilities could lead to a nuclear holocaust.

But perhaps, this outlook is too Cassandra-like; an Israeli strike could be a phenomenal success: Iran’s nuclear capabilities are utterly destroyed, civilian casualties are minimal, the regime falls, a democratic government takes its place and a better day dawns for all of the Middle East. Once again, the tiny state of Israel miraculously defies all odds and a decade of peace is ensured. It’s happened before. In fact, this is the fourth installment of this saga. The previous three were:

  1. David Ben Gurion’s decision in May, 1948 whether to declare independence.
  2. Levi Eshkol’s decision in June 1967 whether to initiate hostilities to forestall Nasser’s (and his allies’) boldly stated intention to invade Israel and drive its inhabitants into the sea.
  3. Golda Meir’s decision in October 1973 whether – having been apprised of Sadat’s (and his allies’) intention to strike Israel on Yom Kippur – to preempt by opening hostilities first.

In every case, Israel’s fate hung in the balance. In the first two instances, the Prime Minister and the Israeli Cabinet chose the bold, aggressive, exceedingly risky course of action. In the third, Ms. Meir did not. History records that – although the first two decisions brought forth a great deal of pain and sacrifice (especially in 1948) – Ben Gurion and Eshkol made the right decision, whereas Meir did not. Had either of the two gentlemen not made his decision as he did, it is likely that Israel would not exist today. And because of Meir’s decision, Israel almost did not survive.

As grave as those pivotal points were, one could argue that Netanyahu’s choice is potentially even more consequential:

  • In the previous crises, weapons of mass destruction were not on the table.
  • The world-wide ramifications of an Israel-Iran conflict are greater than they were for the Israel-Egypt conflicts of the past.
  • Even with a “victory,” the potential for civilian casualties and infrastructure destruction in Israel is much greater in this round.
  • Israel might be more isolated internationally than heretofore.
  • The probability of Israeli success is arguably less this time.
  • There is no chance for secrecy or to launch a truly surprise attack.

Yet, there are incontrovertible facts that Netanyahu cannot ignore. The maniacal leaders of a bloodthirsty, irrational, hate-filled regime have announced flagrantly and repeatedly their intention to destroy his nation. The world dismisses the threat as mere words. Alas, Netanyahu is watching the replay of a bad movie. The original was featured just 70 years ago. The scenario is sickeningly similar. And the monsters who made the threats in the original carried them out – with horrific, existential consequences. World-wide conquest by Herr Hitler was not beyond the realm of possibility. Had he succeeded, it is possible that he could have brought about the extinction of the Jewish people. I have no doubt that the evil Mullahs would be pleased to complete Herr Hitler’s unfinished task. They cannot be permitted to try.

But they have not squeezed the trigger yet. Can Netanyahu be certain that they will? Even if not, can he take the chance? Oh, the uncertainty! The perilous consequences! The bloodshed! Isn’t there another way?

Can you imagine what it is to be in Netanyahu’s shoes? The survival of the Jewish people and the fate of the world arguably rest in his hands. What an awesome responsibility! The consequences are monumental – no matter which way he decides. God grant him the wisdom the make the right choice.
____
This article appeared in The American Thinker at:
and also in The Intellectual Conservative at:

An American Jewish Problem Now Confronts Gentile America

The Rabbi of my synagogue gave a fascinating sermon recently. He praised America as a blessing for its Jewish citizens, but he said that it also threatened their Jewish identity. As he put it: “America is killing us with kindness.” He cited a survey that caused a ruckus a few years ago when it revealed that a surprising number of gentile Americans sought to marry Jews. He went on to point out that America posed a unique problem for its Jewish citizens – a problem virtually unparalleled in the history of the Jewish people.

Specifically, the United States is the first (and arguably the sole) country in world history that is dedicated primarily to the ideals of individual liberty, limited government and sacred personal rights granted by God and not the government. Because of the environment created by this credo, Jews, like all Americans, are free to choose their spiritual, cultural and economic paths in life without being subject to a veto of their plans by any corporal higher authority – of course, within the rule of law. The modus operandi of Jewish civilization over the millennia is quite different. As the Rabbi phrased it, Jewish life is more dictated by “commandment” than by individual freedom. First and foremost, the Jew is enjoined to be faithful to God’s law, as transmitted by Moses, which entails a great deal of limitation on his individual freedom. One can argue – and scores have – that it is precisely this faithfulness to binding commandments that has allowed the Jews to survive many centuries of persecution and torment.

But Jews are not persecuted or tormented in America. We are free to pursue our individual dreams as much as is any other American citizen. And we have done so, with a remarkable degree of success. Furthermore, our beloved country has welcomed and celebrated our success as much as it has for individuals from any other ethnic or religious group. Ah, but there is the rub. Observing the success of their American Jewish brethren and ancestors, increasing numbers of Jewish youth have opted to pursue their individual dreams at the expense of their Jewish heritage. Thus the Rabbi’s humorous lament that “America is killing us with kindness.”

Now how does this Jewish problem translate over to a problem for gentile America? The issue is a clash between an individual’s identity as a member of some religious, ethnic, racial or regional subgroup of Americans as opposed to his identity as an American.

It is my contention that prior to the Civil War, the issue arose primarily with regard to region and race. Ethnically and religiously, the country was relatively, but certainly not completely homogeneous. While the people were mainly of European ancestry, ethnic Germans and ethnic Irish often did not see eye-to–eye, for example. Similarly, while the population was overwhelmingly Christian, the variety of sects and denominations often made for contentious relations. But among the vast majority of these groupings, disharmony between them was not reflected in any group feeling disaffected from the national ethos. There was no fundamental clash between any individual’s ethnic or religious identity and those of the nation as a whole.

This was not true in matters of race or region. The slave population certainly could not identify with American principles since the benefits of those principles were denied to them. And because of that, when combined with certain economic considerations, a huge regional divide opened up between North and South. Furthermore, those in the South definitely felt a disconnect between their moral values and those of the national psyche.

The regional issue was resolved by the Civil War, although the racial issue would take another century to heal. But here is my point: despite massive immigration – whose people the US did an amazing job of digesting, assimilating and fusing with the native population – during the roughly 75-year period from 1875 to 1950, the issue essentially did not arise. During this period, Americans by in large felt little conflict between their local identity (be it religious, ethnic or whatever) and their identity as Americans. (Again, there may have been conflicts between different groups, but very few felt a sense of alienation from their country’s ethos.)

The 1960s would put an end to that. Actually, the progressive cancer had been eating away at traditional America for more than half a century. But it was in the latter part of the twentieth century that traditional America succumbed to the lethal progressive advance. The country ceased to be committed in a primal way to individual liberty, limited government and, as Mr. Jefferson, put it, unalienable rights endowed by the Creator. Increasingly, our rights came from the federal government, a government which ruled by its own designs and not according to the consent of the governed. As a consequence, many segments of the American population found themselves at odds with the national government. Some of those segments included: white males – who were beset at every turn by government policies that disfavored them; WASPs – who fell prey to multiculturalism; entrepreneurs – who came under suspicion because they earned too much money; gun owners – viewed as a threat to the increasingly hegemonic federal government; rural Americans – considered provincial, backward and reactionary; but above all else, religious people – deemed hopelessly retrograde and a threat to the progressive script for a secular, humanist America made safe for unlimited abortion, same-sex marriage and illegal immigration. Even patriots became suspect as America was now seen as a flawed country, not at all exceptional among the nations.

Many in these groups now found themselves in the same place as American Jews. Namely, there arose a fundamental clash between their communal values and those foisted upon them by a distant national government.

There are two basic differences in the nature of the problem faced (for at least three generations) by Jewish Americans and the somewhat newer problem experienced by portions of gentile America. First, for Jews, the choice was between two pleasant alternatives. Not so for Americans who feel oppressed by a gargantuan, debt-ridden, unresponsive government. The second difference is in how the two communities deal with the problem. At least for now, disfavored Americans are fighting back – convening TEA parties, trying to capture the Republican Party and thereby the controls of government, working feverishly in political, cultural and economic spheres to restore America to its traditional roots. It is a formidable challenge, but they seek to change the national paradigm.

Jews cannot imagine such a capability. Constituting less than 2% of the population (already a devastating indicator of our precarious state as in 1950 we constituted 4%), we are not about to change the ethos of the nation. But I have argued that the progressives managed to do so. And how has that change impacted the Jews? The halving of our percentage of the population supplies the answer: not well! In fact, a tremendous percentage of American Jewry has bought into the progressive line and has switched its allegiance from Judaism to liberalism. (This is explained brilliantly in Norman Podhoretz’s book, Why Are Jews Liberal.) The remaining part of American Jewry has the daunting task of on the one hand, joining with the disfavored segments of American society that seek to restore a traditional America, while at the same time, retaining their Jewish identity in a restored America of individual liberty.
____
This article also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative at:

Government Coercion

The arrogance of the Obama administration knows no bounds. First, it simply announces that under the mandate of Obamacare, religious-based organizations will have to provide health insurance benefits that violate the moral precepts of their religion. Then, when surprised by the blowback that Obama’s audacity of dopiness engenders, the President magnanimously allows that said organizations will not have to include the offensive features in their health care package; but said features will have to be offered FREE OF CHARGE by the health insurance provider.

One wonders if he is obtuse enough not to realize that the insurance company will simply raise its other fees to cover the “free benefit” – thereby spreading the cost to others who may have no dog in the fight. Or if he understands this and is simply arrogant enough to think that if he can unconstitutionally mandate that individuals must buy a product (health insurance), then he can also mandate that a business must give away one of its products for free.

What’s next?

  • Every employer that provides life insurance coverage to employees must include suicide benefits in its coverage. If that offends the sensibilities of the employer, then the life insurance company will provide the benefit free of charge.
  • Every employer that provides disability insurance to employees must include benefits for disabilities incurred from dangerous activities such as skydiving. If the employer objects, then the disability insurance company will provide the benefit free of charge.
  • All banks that pay interest on savings accounts must guarantee a rate of return that Ben Bernanke says is fair. If they don’t, depositors get the Bernanke rate and the Federal Reserve will fund it.
  • All workers must join a union, except that if the employer has no collective bargaining agreement with any union, then workers will automatically receive annual cost of living wage increases that Bernanke decrees appropriate, and it will be funded from the federal treasury.
  • President Obama will receive at least 51% of the votes cast in November 2012 in every state. Any state that fails to comply will be expelled from the Union.
  • World peace will be declared on December 31, 2012. Any violation will be dealt with by a committee consisting of Joe Biden, Eric Holder and Kathleen Sibelius.
_____
This post also appeared in The American Thinker at:

Nation Building: From Success to Failure

An examination of the differences between past and recent US nation building efforts; why the former succeeded and the latter failed.

The United States has been involved in serious nation building over the last decade in two Middle Eastern nations – Iraq and Afghanistan. These ventures recall two other major efforts of this type dating back to the middle of last century – Germany and Japan. By any measure, the earlier two (Germany and Japan) were rip-snorting successes. On the other hand, with regard to the most recent two (Iraq and Afghanistan) – although the final word is not in yet – it appears highly unlikely that either will prove to be anything other than a disaster. To evaluate why success has been followed by failure, we shall first need a concrete definition of the concept of nation building.

Wikipedia entries must always be treated with caution, but in this case, the definition provided there will serve adequately for the purposes of this piece. To wit: [The] deliberate effort by a foreign power to construct or install the institutions of a national government, according to a model that may be more familiar to the foreign power…[and]…typically characterized by massive investment, military occupation, transitional government, and the use of propaganda to communicate governmental policy. Furthermore, in all cases in which the US has been the foreign power, the process has always been …succinctly described by its proponents as the use of force [and coercion] in the aftermath of a conflict to underpin an enduring transition to democracy.

The US occupations of (West) Germany and Japan following their defeat in World War II were absolute and unqualified successes. Both nations were converted from brutal, totalitarian dictatorships into peaceful, democratic, free nations whose societies adopted social/political/cultural mores much more reminiscent of the Western, liberal tradition than of an Eastern, authoritarian model. Moreover, those changes have endured over three successive generations.

No one expects that the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, which are now winding down, will achieve even a fraction of the success enjoyed by the preceding two. A fragile democracy has indeed been installed in Iraq. But it appears unlikely to survive the fractured ethnic structure of the population, the intrusive enmity of its neighbors, the lack of any historical basis of free institutions, the sponsor’s loss of interest, and a position in the crosshairs of radical Islamic forces seeking to remake that portion of the world. We have also installed a fragile government in Afghanistan, but it is certainly not a democracy. Moreover, each of the five conditions stated above calling into question the survivability of the US sponsored regime in Iraq applies to Afghanistan – with even more emphasis, if possible.

One might argue that the US engaged in two other great efforts at nation building between the first two and last two named above – namely, Korea and Vietnam. The second of these will immediately and legitimately be labeled as an abject failure. On the other hand, given the situation today in (South) Korea, one could argue that that effort was a success. But strictly speaking, neither of these efforts qualifies as nation building according to the afore-stated definition. In Vietnam, we never got to that phase, because we never achieved the requisite military success to initiate the process of changing the political/cultural structure of the nation. In Korea, at least in the South, we did reach that point, but after the armistice, we made no serious effort to alter the politics or culture of the nation. Nevertheless, I will apply to both Korea and Vietnam the criteria that I develop below as I attempt to identify why our retooling of the Axis nations succeeded, while our remaking of the two Muslim Middle Eastern nations failed.

The criteria I will examine are:

  1. Size of the occupying force.
  2. Duration of the effort.
  3. Extent of US control of developments in the occupied country. This includes whether there is any local resistance, but also the isolation of the target, i.e., the US’ ability to control the regional environment surrounding the occupied country.
  4. US understanding of the culture and history of the occupied country and its people.
  5. Level of support in the US for the venture.
  6. Stature of the US in the world at the time and its willingness to project power.

The meaning of each of these half-dozen criteria should be evident. Moreover, it should be clear that all have a bearing on the success or failure of a nation building effort. While other criteria could be envisioned, I believe these six represent the crucial factors that will determine success or failure in a nation building enterprise.

Let’s consider the cases in chronological order:

  • Germany. Five of six of the factors were in our favor. The occupying force was large; it stayed for a long while (remnants are still there); we had an excellent understanding of Germany and its people (at the time, Germans comprised one of the largest ethnic groups in the US); the American people were totally behind the recreation of Germany as a democratic state; and the US was the preeminent power in the world with no shame or hesitation about projecting that power. The only failing criterion was #3: Germany was half-surrounded by Soviet clients and mischief across its borders was theoretically possible. But Germany was thoroughly defeated, America had ample forces on the ground and the Soviets were so preoccupied consolidating their own gains in Eastern Europe as to forestall any meaningful attempt at subversive destabilization of W. Germany (at the time).
  • Japan. Again, we enjoyed five of six. The missing ingredient here was #4: a deep understanding of the Japanese people and culture. But we had total control of the country, which contained a people willing to try something different, and we deployed some extraordinary personnel (from MacArthur down) who did a fantastic job. In some ways, our success in Japanese nation building was more amazing than in the German effort. The Japanese nation, indeed the world is a far better place for our nation building project there. It was a phenomenal American achievement.
  • Korea. Although we were in a position to engage in nation building in South Korea in 1953, we did not do so. Actually, of the six criteria, only #4 and #5 were not satisfied. We had sufficient troops, and as time has shown, the capability of keeping them in place for a very long time. We were in complete control of the southern portion of the peninsula and we were still the most powerful nation on Earth. Of course we had little understanding of Korean culture and the folks at home were weary of the venture. Whether this would have been sufficient to succeed cannot be known since we didn’t really try.
  • Vietnam. Like Korea, our effort here does not count because we never got to the nation building phase. As for the criteria: only #1 and #2 applied. We committed a half-million troops for nearly a decade. But we failed at the remaining four criteria. We never really established control of South Vietnam or its neighbors; we understood the Vietnamese even less well than we understood the Koreans or Japanese; the domestic opposition to our Vietnam adventure was fierce; and from the mid 60s to the end of the 70s, US global stature was declining as the Soviets were on the march.
  • Iraq. Again only #1 and #2 were satisfied. That we failed at 3-5 is self-evident. And certainly with the arrival of the Obama administration, #6 eluded us too. In fact, one could claim, as many did, that we did not have enough boots on the ground. As for #2, eight years should be long enough. It didn’t take much longer than that in Germany and Japan. But now we can’t get out of Iraq quickly enough.
  • Afghanistan. Once again, virtually everything said about Iraq is true here in spades. The only caveat is domestic opposition to this venture is somewhat tempered by 9-11 and our elimination of Osama bin Laden.

So what conclusions can we draw? All the criteria are important to the success of a nation building mission; in principle, one would like them all to be satisfied. But is it possible that the lack of any one or specific group of them must prove fatal? In Germany we lacked #3 and in Japan #4, yet we succeeded. On the other hand, I believe that the other four are indispensable. However, I also believe that, regarding #1 and #2, this is so basic as to be obvious and uninteresting. They are a set of minimum necessary criteria. What is more surprising is the absolute necessity of #5 and #6. These are not as self-evidently necessary as are #1 and #2. But as history has shown, without them, there is no chance of success. Without the support of the homeland, there cannot be a sustained will to carry through with the incredibly difficult task of fundamentally altering the course of a nation. And without the requisite power and willingness to use it, even with the political will to nation build, there will not be the capability.

With these lessons in mind, we might ponder any future nation building enterprise under consideration. There are those who advocate such an exercise in Syria or Iran. But it should be completely clear that none of conditions 3-6 will be fulfilled for either of those nations. Our examination has revealed that this might not prove fatal in case of #3 or #4, but the missing pieces in #5 and #6 would surely spell doom. Of course, we have a compelling interest in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. We will just have to do so without attempting to alter the character of that tortured nation.
____
This article also appeared in The Intellectual Conservative at:
and also in The Land of the Free at: