This post is going to be political. If you don’t like that, come back tomorrow, and check MGC in about an hour. There will be a new post and it will be about writing.
You see, I just realized the utter brilliance of our strategy on Syria. No? Guys, it’s the Nuke The Moon Strategy.
For years on the right, we’ve admired Frank J. Flemming’s strategy first proposed in IMAO years ago, that we should just nuke the moon, so the rest of the world will go “Whoa. Those Americans are nuts. They just nuked the moon for NO REASON AT ALL. We should never mess with them” and leave us alone. Prominent righties and – particularly – libertarians have been seen sporting a Nuke the Moon T-shirt. (Okay, so I need to buy one. I want to get one for Toni Weisskopf too.)
Now we’ve been watching the run-up to war in Syria, utterly bewildered. Wait, what? We’re going in because a dictator killed his own people? Uh. So, when do we go in to Russia and China? Are they already on the slate? If we go in everytime a regime acts badly to its own people, we’re going to need a bigger army.
In fact, some of us libertarians, wary of this administration’s view on things, have wondered if it meant that Obama realized socialism/communism are direct descendants of things like the Roman Empire, and that the only way such empires can survive is through plunder an rapine. (the flip side of Russia’s stories about liberating other countries, is that they plundered other countries, particularly in Africa, to keep their miserable regime going at home. Otherwise they would not have last 70 years.) So we looked at this warily, wondering if we were about to actually start that thing that the progressives have been seeing everywhere, an American Empire.
It is of course the crux of the libertarian dilemma. We do believe in liberty for all and that all humans crave liberty. But we do not wish to engage in war to bring about an universal revolution. We tend to think that people will come to liberty in their own time. In fact, some of us don’t believe in even defensive wars, which is why the saner ones of us have a small l in libertarian.
So, though I believe indeed that Assad is a very bad man (Michael Totten says so, and I trust him. Also, you don’t argue with a man who’s been where he’s been) and needs taking out, I also know the world – and particularly the Middle East – is full of very bad men. If we start taking them out one by one, there won’t be a functional difference from empire, unless we go in, take them out and then come home, which leaves the country in the state of the man who had demons cast out: much worse things will move in. And then it will all be to do again, unless, of course, your idea is to get the US surrounded by enemies.
Considering this president’s background, this has occurred to some of us, too.
But then we watched the lead up to the war and it looked like anything but the beginning of a new empire, or even the beginning of an evil plan.
To begin with, what kind of empire or evil plan starts by sending John-the-French* and his enormous chin abroad? Who could possibly take him seriously? The English were laughing so hard that they actually voted NOT to bleed and die with us, as they’ve been doing over the last ten years.
And then there’s the “We’re going to bomb on Saturday” and then “no, we’re not, we’re going golfing.” There followed the bewildering “We’re going to bomb but not hurt anyone, or perhaps even infrastructure, and we’ll only use drones.” And before that, who can forget the famous “We’re going to bomb just enough not to be laughed at?” Oh, and the “We’re not going to have boots on the ground, unless our strategy fails, and then we’ll send our men in to die for—What? We need an objective? Well, no we don’t, we have drawers on our heads, so there.”
As we watched this unroll in horror, one of my friends sent me the following as his guess as to Obama’s motives:
Let me be perfectly clear… I am not attacking Syria because I have something to prove. It’s just extremely vital to our national security interests that we intervene in this situation that everyone with a measurable IQ is advising against intervening in. I think it’s imperative that we attack Syria becase that will mean you should love me now, right? I’m Daddy’s big brave soldier now, right! DAMN IT, DAD, ANSWER ME!!! WHY DID YOU LEAVE?
This is what is known as a low blow, but I don’t feel qualified to say it is not true, either.
And after all the speculation on Bush’s motives for war, after we were ATTACKED, for a full eight years, I don’t feel particularly charitable either. And my friend Bill Reader, might very well be right.
Another friend – one of you, whom I’ll credit if he wishes, sent me slogans for the new war:
Obama Bluffed, Hillary Sloughed, Syrians Get Stuffed
No Blood For Ego
Wage War, Not Dithering
No War On Middle East Reformers
Obama’s Syrian Plan: If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well it were done leisurely
Obama Dithered, Rebellions Withered
Obama’s Chickens, Coming Home To Roost
The Obama Doctrine: Speak Loudly, But Don’t Carry A Stick, Big Or Otherwise
The Democrat Party: Emboldening America’s Enemies For 100 Years
When the going gets tough, Obama gets flustered
Drift is not a strategy
To which I confess I added: Is this a Syria I see before my hand? Its Assad pointed towards me? Oh, never mind, I’ll go kill America’s checks and balances, instead.
So… as you can tell we were somewhat confused. But our brilliant (in the sense that light reflects off them because they’re so greasy) representatives seem determined to give the President his war.
And they can’t all be mentally retarded or daddy issues cases.**
So why would “sane” people want us to engage in a war against people who did NOT directly attack us, for nebulous reasons, with no victory conditions, on the side of an organization that DID attack us a dozen years ago, and apparently having promised to do nothing more than bomb some sand? (Which could get us told to go pound sand.)
I mean, I looked and looked and could make no sense of it. It was like a French Absurdist Play.***
And then it hit me. It was nuke the moon.
We’re going in to bomb a random country for killing its own people perhaps with weapons of mass destruction, which might have been deployed by the government OR the rebels we’re going to help.
We’re going to rain sheer terror on a country out of the blue because our president is bored with golf.
Friends, it’s brilliant. It’s nuke the moon. From now on any country out there knows that at any minute it could find itself on the painful end of the greatest military the world has ever seen.
It’s the perfect prelude to a libertarian regime, which isolates itself from the world. FIRST you must scare the crap out of the world.
I can tell you from experience the scariest people to meet around a street corner are not the strong, evil-looking men. They’re the coke-stringy people, with the wild eyes, muttering to themselves. At any minute, they might come at you. You can’t predict what they’ll do. The only thing you can do is leave them alone.
Metaphorically speaking, this administration has set out to make the US the drug addicted drifter mumbling about space aliens and waving a knife around with no purpose.
It’s either absolutely, staggeringly brilliant…
Or we’re the meth head in the corner on our way to death by cop.
But I’m hoping for the first. Well done, presidential advisers. Let’s nuke the moon Syria.
*No real French people are harmed by this comparison, since Kerry resembles only a caricature Frenchman, drawn by Francophobes. I heard rumors he doesn’t even speak French. (Yes, he says he does. But he also claims to be a war hero.)
**Okay, so they can, but I like to sleep at night.
*** I will note that the French are with us on this war, and they know from Absurdist Plays. (I’ll also recycle a low blow from 2002 and point out that taking the French to war as our allies is as indispensable as taking an accordion on a deer hunt.)
UPDATE: Completely unrelated post at Mad Genius Club.