IT’S TOO BAD TOM CLANCY DOESN’T HAVE A BLOG….I realize that surfing around the warblogger sites and continuously mocking them doesn’t really do any good, ultimately. Grains of sand and beaches, you know.
Still, we do what we can and occasionally I run across something so wildly out of touch with reality that it practically invites abuse. Here is Patrick Ruffini today analyzing world affairs:
Meanwhile, France’s last act will have been to demonstrate its utter futility in world affairs, and for what purpose?
Exactly why is it that warbloggers insist that voting against the United States demonstrates other countries’ “utter futility”? Is that the fate of anyone who votes against mighty America? If so, it’s a long list.
However, the reason for Patrick’s disdain toward anyone who disagrees with us soon becomes obvious. Apparently he has been reading lots of Tom Clancy novels about the ever-growing power of the U.S. military:
Soaking all this in it dawns on me that it isn’t inconceivable that, if these gains continue into the relatively near future, the U.S. could pop a Saddam-sized dictator every three to six months. Under these circumstances, the shallow European criticism, “What are you going to do, kill every dictator?” doesn’t sound that implausible or unattractive.
I wonder how many warbloggers agree with this kind of thinking? Are they seriously under the impression that the world can be made a safer place by knocking off miscellaneous dictators a few times a year? And that this would, somehow, reduce the threat from terrorism? And that either (a) we can also help rebuild several countries a year or (b) we don’t need to bother?
I suppose there’s really no need to answer that, is there?
UPDATE: Patrick responds here.