Post-Inaugural Reasons to Be Cheerful: It's Kristol-Clear

At the end of a rambling New York Times essay by a neo-conservative advising Barack Obama and the rest of us on how to be good liberals --- "a fighting faith, unapologetically patriotic and strong in the defense of liberty" (translation: can you find someone somewhere to beat up without an aftermath like Iraq 2003?) --- this footnote:

This is William Kristol’s last column.

Now there's something to be unapologetically patriotic about.

William Kristol on Why Gazans Must Die....So We Can Defeat Iran

William Kristol argued yesterday in the New York Times that, "the conventional wisdom will be proved wrong. Israel could well succeed in Gaza":

For one thing, southern Lebanon is a substantial and hilly area, bordered by northern Lebanon and Syria, through which Hezbollah could be re-supplied, both by Syria itself and by Iran. Gaza is a flat, narrow strip, bordered by Israel, as well as by the sea and by Egypt, no friend to Hamas. By cutting off the northern part of Gaza from the southern, Israel has basically surrounded northern Gaza, creating a military situation very different from that in Lebanon in 2006.

And:

In addition, in Lebanon, Israel proclaimed war goals that it couldn’t achieve — such as retrieving its two kidnapped soldiers and disarming Hezbollah. Now the Israeli government says that it seeks to weaken Hamas, lessen its ability to fire rockets from Gaza and secure new arrangements along the Egyptian-Gaza border to prevent Hamas from re-arming. These may well be achievable goals.

Fair enough. But Kristol then attempts to portray the Israeli move into Gaza as the latest salvo in the 'war on terror':

An Israeli success in Gaza would be a victory in the war on terror — and in the broader struggle for the future of the Middle East. Hamas is only one manifestation of the rise, over the past few decades, of a terror-friendly and almost death-cult-like form of Islamic extremism. The combination of such terror movements with a terror-sponsoring and nuclear-weapons-seeking Iranian state (aided by its sidekick Syria) has produced a new kind of threat to Israel.

But not just to Israel. To everyone in the Middle East — very much including Muslims — who aren’t interested in living under the sway of extremist regimes. And to any nation, like the United States, that is a target of Islamic terror.

And then there's this:

But a defeat of Hamas in Gaza — following on the heels of our success in Iraq — would be a real setback for Iran. It would make it easier to assemble regional and international coalitions to pressure Iran. It might positively affect the Iranian elections in June. It might make the Iranian regime more amenable to dealing. [Emphasis added]

That's right. A 'success' in Gaza- like the 'success' in Iraq- "might" make the Iranian government easier for the US to deal with. Might. Might not.

Firedoglake, meanwhile, reacts to Kristol's piece thusly:

Once again the calculus is this:

-- Random indiscriminate car bomb or ill-aimed mortar -- the most awful tragedy ever (from Gaza, rocket attacks killed 15 people over 8 years).

-- Carpet bombing killing hundreds -- AWESOME!

There's never a question of proportionality as long as a Muslim is on the receiving end of Bill Kristol's notion of justice.