Thursday, March 23, 2006

Faster, Neocons! Kill! Kill!

Commentary by Martin Kelly
September 16, 2004

Beginning in 1922, the British boys’ comics Wizard and Hotspur carried a story called ‘The Wolf of Kabul’. The Wolf, British intelligence agent Bill Sampson, was a typical end of Empire type, happiest when kicking ten bells out to the locals. He had an Afghan sidekick, Chung, whose weapon of choice was a cricket bat, which he called ‘Clicky-ba’. Chung’s catchphrase after using lethal force was to say to The Wolf, ‘Lord, I am full of humble sorrow – I did not mean to knock down these men – Clicky-ba merely turned in my hand’.

Clicky-ba was turning in the hands of neocon commentator Jed Babbin in a September 13th article called ‘Did We Lose The War?’ in The American Spectator on the Web. I like TAS, think it’s a great site, second only to The Washington Dispatch. In the current difficult climate, it has the courage to publish the widest range of opinion of any conservative site affiliated to print media, with steady authors ranging from the sublime James Bowman to the ridiculous Babbin. They’ve published a lot of my letters, so I write this with some regret, as they’ll probably never do so again.

Babbin, a contributing editor of TAS and a contributor to the National Review
Online, is a former functionary in the Bush I Pentagon and is or was a talking head for MSNBC. In this capacity, he patronised Bob and Wlady’s readers by referring to his broadcasting duties as being ‘a talking warhead’ while describing himself on NRO as a ‘military analyst’. However, his climb up Rich Lowry’s greasy pole has not yet gone so far that he has merited pop-up ads for either of the books he’s written while I’ve been reading him.

The second sentence of the article was

‘We’re doing pretty well in the war against terrorists and the nations that support them’.

Therefore, a neocon betrays their belief that a state of war exists between America and any nation they believe supports terrorism. Do not expect peace any time soon. I’ve written regularly about the immorality of the neoconservatives’ rapprochement with Gaddafi. Has he?

From paragraph four –

“It’s awfully likely that we will see some large attack in the U.S. homeland before the election, because the terrorists want to affect the result”.

Classic neoconservative scaremongering. His idol, George W. Bush, has invested billions of dollars in Homeland Security, which seems to have paid off. There have been no attacks. There were no attacks during the primaries, none during the conventions. Why should Babbin think that the entire force of the Federal government will be unsuccessful in preventing an attack he is utterly confident will happen within the next few weeks? And to prevent that happening, why isn’t he calling for the return of troops from Iraq to bolster security at home? And why does he think such a strong and powerful people as the Americans are so weak that they would let terrorists affect the outcome of their election? Does he think they are children?

In paragraph five is a phrase that could be interpreted as meaning Babbin believes we aren’t killing Afghans quickly enough –

“a still-too-slow decision process is delaying our hunter-killer teams”

Faster, Neocons! Kill! Kill! Feel the turn of Clicky-ba!

On the efficacy of the Iraqi provisional government, from paragraph seven –

“We should be doing much more to destroy the insurgency in Iraq, but we can’t unless Allawi lets us. We are paying a high price for turning sovereignty back to the Iraqis too soon”

One could pick over that statement on several levels; all I will say is that it is the statement of a classical imperialist.

On the stone in their shoes that is the country of Iran, from paragraph nine –

“(His overly diplomatic comment meant that) Iran was running the al-Sadr insurgency and had become one of the principal obstacles to freedom in Iraq”.

Two principal observations – firstly, does the fact that the British government has been accused of using Basra as cover for building links with the mullahs qualify us as one of those ‘nations that support’ terrorists; and secondly, the real obstacle to freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan has been the willingness of neoconservatives to agree to Sharia law as a source for both those countries’ new constitutions. As a result of their failure to demand totally secular states, both of those countries will fail again. It is only a matter of time.

From paragraph 11, while discussing North Korea –

“John Kerry said he wants America to be respected, not feared. Sorry, Johnnie. I prefer ‘feared’”.

How they love the power of fear, a power developed by their spiritual grandfather Trotsky when he wielded the might of the Red Army.

The last sentence of the article is, well, just read this –

“Our October surprise should be a big nasty one for Iran”.

One does not know whether to mock or pity such a sentiment. However, it is entirely reflective of the mindset of his fellow ideologue Michael Ledeen, AEI fellow, NRO columnist and an ardent advocate for war on Iran, always phrased with the words ‘Faster, please’. He must see himself as a new Cato, but these guys are closet leftists. Talk of ‘Faster, please’, an America that’s ‘feared’, nasty surprises for Iran, using scaremongering on terror attacks the way the Soviets used fear of sabotage – these are attacks of the left, not of the right. Babbin and Ledeen have lurched so far to the left that they’re one step away from marching down the Mall in green jackets and Mao hats.
It all used to mean something, boys, but Iraq has proved its futility. It’s time for all American conservatives to see these guys for what they are, hardened ideologues of empire who have no compunction about how much blood, or whose blood, they spill in the process of getting what they want, when they want, where they want it. Jed Babbin is prepared to say he doesn’t think any of it’s worked, as he fears a homeland attack in a matter of weeks. It’s time to go back to the thinktanks, boys. Faster, please.