I think Bill Kristol is starting to become a little bit unglued. His latest missive is so poorly written and confusing, I feel like taking out my red pen and marking it up for bad construction and lack of clarity. When an accomplished wordsmith like Kristol loses the ability to communicate effectively, you suspect something has gone sour in the noggin. He spends most of the column making an argument he vehemently disagrees with, only to divulge at the end that the argument is not his, but the State Department’s, except not really. Or is it?

At bottom, there is something that is worrying Kristol, and he finally gets around to stating it in the last lines.














Much of the U.S. government no longer believes in, and is no longer acting to enforce, the Bush Doctrine. “The United States of America understands and believes that Iran is not Iraq.” That’s a diplomatic way of saying that the United States of America is in retreat.

What’s the Bush Doctrine, you ask? Well, it started out with that statement about the United States not making any distinction between the terrorists that carried out 9/11 and the host countries that harbor such terrorists. That was the rationale for invading Afghanistan after they refused to turn over Usama bin-Laden. But, then it kind of morphed into a doctrine that made no distinction between the terrorists that carried out 9/11 and nations that don’t harbor such terrorists.

“the Bush Doctrine has come to be identified with a policy that permits preventive war against potential aggressors before they are capable of mounting attacks against the United States”

Now, to be fair, Iran did a lot more harboring of the 9/11 terrorists and their handlers than is generally acknowledged. So did Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, for that matter. Germany wasn’t exactly stellar in that department, either. But, we aren’t making a case for tough action against Iran (or any of these other countries) based on the old harboring terrorists criteria. We are basing it Iran’s intention to enrich their own uranium. The theory is that Iran cannot be trusted to use the uranium for non-military purposes, nor can they be trusted to refrain from using it for offensive and pre-emptive purposes, nor can they be trusted not to use it in terrorist attacks (either directly or through proxies). Each of these assertions should be taken separately.

Kristol wants the U.S. to attack Iran (oh, and Sudan).

COLBERT: Who do we go after next? Iran? Come on!

KRISTOL: I think we may have to take military action against…

COLBERT: Let’s get some boots on the ground, sir!

KRISTOL: I wish…we may have to do that. We have to do that in the Sudan.

COLBERT: Is the military option on the table in Iran?

KRISTOL: Absolutely, absolutely. And in Sudan.

But Kristol now sees the United States as unwilling to take military action against Iran. Strangely, he doesn’t argue for impeaching Bush and Cheney for a failure of leadership that led to a loss of national will. He blames the State Department. He mocks Condi Rice by putting the following in her mouth…

Sure, hawks will worry that proclaiming “Iran is not Iraq” signals that the Bush administration is now terrified even to threaten the use of force against terror-sponsoring dictatorships seeking weapons of mass destruction. But all options, at least theoretically, are still on the table.

I have been saying for months that the defeat in Iraq signals the end of the rationale for the U.S. Empire. Kristol seems to sense this and to fear it. He looks around and cannot find a safe harbor for himself. He says Rumsfeld should have been fired a year or two ago. Rice is weak-kneed. Cheney, utterly discredited, should consider resignation. Bush, a puppet and an incompetent, can’t set things right. Kristol plays around with blaming the implementation of the Iraq plan, rather than the decision to invade itself. But, he knows that the tide of the argument is running against him. He knows that that argument has less shelf life than the one that held that Vietnam wasn’t a mistake of strategy, but of tactics.

Where does that put neo-conservatism? Where does it put unilateralism? What does the post-Iraq environment and national mood do for PNAC’s statement of principles?

…the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership

Once this country finally rids itself of this odious administration and extracts itself from Iraq, we are going to have a national debate about what America’s ‘vital role’ should be in promoting peace and security, and how best to do that going forward. Kristol’s model is dead, it’s implementers discredited. I think the whole spectacle is starting to rattle him.