Matt Yglesias points out the recent Pew polls that show (among other things) wide Jordanian and Egyptian support for an Iranian nuke. (and a majority believe it will be used on Israel).
This is, of course the fault of the neocons.I think you're seeing here the poisonous fruits of the "clash of civilizations" dynamic that we've been drifting toward for years now. And suffice it to say that this is very bad news. When people's level of dislike for American hegemony is growing so intense that they start looking on things like Iranian nukes as a positive development, we have a problem. In part, it's a serious problem for our Iran policy. In part, it's a symptom of an underlying issue that's going to create problems for us all over the map.Now, some of us might have suggested that the problem was here in, say, 1988. But no one was paying attention back then, and no one was talking about "a clash of civilizations" yet (Huntington, 1993).
Once again, everything flows from our actions; there is no one out there except shadows cast by our helpless might.
I might have mentioned this before, but I was worried about an Iranian nuke back around 1980, well before Al-Qaeda was on the scene. I looked at the Shi'a need-to-prove-themselves-the-true-faith, and at the demographics there and in Pakistan, looked at the oil money and technical prowess in the respective locales, and connected the dots. If the Shi'a nuke Israel, doesn't that "prove" Allah has blessed them over the Sunni? By my lights we've been on borrowed time for a quarter of a century.
But what do I know? Nuthin'.
Or 1983. Or 1979. Or 1972. Or 1815. Or 1683. Or 1492. Or 1453.
Arabs want to nuke Israel because of America? Not the other way around?
Strange times indeed.
From the same poll:
Also:
Matt Yglesias was what, 7 years old in 1988? There is a thread that runs through his writing -- "everything important that has ever happened has occurred during my lifetime because, well, my generation is (and therefore, I am) the center of the universe." At some point, maybe he'll figure out that much of what he's experiencing and seeing for the first time is really old news. His elders and betters have been there, done that. But then again, maybe he'll never get over his youthful, clueless self-absorption (see, for example, John F. Kerry). For now, at least, the appropriate response to Yglesias is "that's nice, now run along and play."
Good point.
I wouldn't be that worried, people.
The US will still be the only superpower by 2030.
P.D. Shaw said : "Only U.S., India and Russia showed majority support for WoT. Again, Pakistan support is showing steady increase (16%, 22%, 30%) "
The problem is, we haven't actually got India's and Russia's active support yet. If we did, those two countries are really all we need. The US + Russia + India represent 3 of the 4 largest militaries. Plus, Britain and Australia will still be on our side anyway.
India and Russia are very pro-US populations as it is.
Anyone who has ever managed a sales staff should know one thing.
You can't motivate people, you can only demotivate them.
Does that mean that had we not invaded Iraq, tossed out ignorant lines like "Axis of Evil" or invoked the word "crusade" that all the folks in the mideast would love us now?
Of course not, it's not a zero sum game and never will be. But to ignore the trend and likely causes of it is incredibly irresponsible.
We won't get Indian support for the WoT so long as we continue to coddle the Pakistanis, whether they crack down on LeT (and the rest) or not.
I thought some of the polling on India was odd. Favorable view of U.S.:
2002: 54%
2005: 71%
2006: 56%
Between 2005 and 2006, Bush's numbers actually went up in India (54%, 56%), while favorable views of the American people went down (71%, 67%) Most of the world has a more favorable view of Americans than the U.S. Maybe Indians are getting tired of getting cranky calls from Americans.
PDShaw,
The percentage of Indians that work in tech support centers, relative to the total population of India, is negligible.
It is comparable to the percentage of American men who have slept with a supermodel.
Yeah, Iran is going to have nuclear weapons. Deal with it.
It renders military action unthinkable and forces diplomacy on people who would rather fight with bombs and bullets than with ideas.
Yes, Ken, ideas. Iran's got some brilliant ones, like the Holocaust being a fraud and the "Zionists" being wiped off the map.
Didn't you hear it on NPR? Iran is actually misunderstood. All along, we were the ones making them support Hamas, blow up Marines, and the rest. They wanted to start an orphanage and sell cookies, but no, we had to mess it all up.
When will we ever learn?
I just hope we can get somebody in Washington who isn't afraid to use ideas, words, and even strong invective if that's called for!
'Strong invective?' Might need to run something that harsh past the UN first. Global test and all, dontcha know.
Um. How about a link to his post so we can read it ourselves?