It’s a Small World, After All, and Increasingly Dangerous

Walt Disney was right. It is a small world, after all.

But unlike Walt’s utopian vision, the smaller it gets, the more dangerous it gets.

Look at what is going on in Pakistan. A couple of years ago, nobody would care about Pakistan. But now everybody should care. Pakistan’s government is teetering. The Taliban and al Qaeda are resurgent, and the Musharraf government is in big trouble, losing support from all sectors of Pakistani society. But Musharraf is our friend, and most importantly, he shares our dislike of al Qaeda, which tried to kill him. Keeping Pakistan stable is our highest priority because they have nuclear weapons that may fall into the wrong hands if the wrong people get in power. We can’t let that happen.

Look at what is going in Kurdistan. Ten years ago, nobody here cared about Kurdistan, except for the Kurds (and the Turks). But now, everybody should care. The Turks are mobilizing to invade the Kurds, as are the Iranians. Kurdish guerrillas are attacking both sides in separate actions. Of course, Turkey is our friend (well, they were until House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., scheduled a vote on the Armenian genocide) but they see the Kurds as a threat to their national security. The Iranians — our enemies — also see the Kurds as a threat to their national security. All of this complicates an already complicated situation in the rest of Iraq for the United States. Kurdistan had been the most stable part of Iraq, chiefly because the Kurds had gone about their own business. But that stability is about to come crashing down.

Iran, of course, is a perennial source of problems for us. It is the most aggressive state sponsor of terrorism in the world, and it is attempting to build a nuclear bomb. Not good. But do we have the resources to stop them, now that we are stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan? Hmm, don’t know. Can diplomacy work? Diplomacy will only work if the Iranians think we are crazy enough to invade them to stop their nuclear development program. They will ignore us otherwise.

As we sort out the problems that roil the Islamic world, we have the Soviet Union re-forming under Vladimir Putin and the Chinese building a space-based weapon. What should we do about Putin’s increasingly bellicose statements about the United States and his strangling of democratic forces within his own country? What can we do about the Chinese and their more aggressive militarism?

Throw in the crazy antics of Hugo Chavez. He threatens America with energy blackmail, he plots with Fidel Castro on how he can undermine American society, he bankrolls guerrilla groups — all this as he tightens his grip on the Venezuelan people. What should we do with this guy?

It is a very dangerous world out there. Does Hillary Clinton have the strength, and does her party have the will, to do battle with all of these threats? Will the American public trust the aggressive pacifism and militant anti-militarism of the dominant Democratic left wing to deal with these very real problems that face American security?

Ronald Reagan not only had the right philosophy of peace through strength, he also had the right public persona to deal with the Soviet Union. In other words, he scared the hell of out them. I don’t think the election of Hillary Clinton will scare the hell out of any of our enemies. In face, my guess is they will scoff at her election as a sign of American weakness.

George Bush goes away next November, but these national security challenges will not. The Republican candidate who best articulates a vision of American strength in the face of this dangerous new world will have the best chance of beating Hillary next year.