Entanglements? What Entanglements?

A recent column by Ed Feulner of The Heritage Foundation is remarkable not for the political/foreign policy it represents, but for the assumptions that are made – or rather, taken for granted as things that any reasonable person would subscribe to without question, and therefore require no supporting evidence or logic. There are also statements that are likewise meant to be accepted prima facie, even though they raise many questions. Let me list a few of these statements and assumptions, i.e. the ones I have gleaned from the article (“Defense for a dangerous world”, Sep. 22):

“We’ve gone seven years without a terrorist attack on U.S. soil…” Right. But we’re also turning into a police state, we’re scared of our own shadows, the executive branch has taken over the government completely, and we’re bankrupting ourselves fighting the “Global War on Terrorism”. They don’t need to attack us “on U.S. soil”, Ed! They’ve already won!

“… we’re seeing progress in Iraq” So where would the evidence for that be, pray tell?

“Iran seems eager to obtain ballistic missiles that could threaten Europe…” You know, I have yet to hear, or read, one statement by any Iranian politican that reflects hostility toward Europe. Hostility toward Israel, sure. Toward us, you bet. But Europe? Why?

“… with the help of our allies, our military is responding to the growing threats.” Help from our “allies”, indeed. Might as well claim that the guy who wipes off the massage table in Madison Square Garden helped Muhammad Ali win the title.

“In August, Poland agreed to base interceptor missiles on its territory.” Anyone remember the last time we entered into a defense deal with Poland? So now it’s not “Europe” but _Poland_ that Iran has a grudge against. So when does this cross the line into genuine paranoia? And even if the premise has some merit, does anyone have any idea when Iran might actually be able to deliver nukes by air at that distance? Can you say “decades, if ever”? And of course, the premise running through all of this is that it’s our job to defend Europe, not Europe’s job.

“… our own defense soon will be tied directly to their (Poland and the Czech Republic’s) defense.” For God’s sake, why?? But Feulner seems to think this is not only desirable, but is the normal course of things.

And he says Russia was “overreaching” when it invaded Georgia. But we weren’t overreaching when we invaded Iraq?

“… the Poles are smart to want more secure ties with NATO and the U.S.” Or they could also be extremely stupid if they think those “ties” are going to help them if Russia decides it wants to reclaim the Warsaw Pact.

And so on! But that’s enough to illustrate my point.

Now, I guess Feulner qualifies as a “Neocon” – but he’s certainly not operating on the nut-case level of a Pat Robertson, say. He seems like a highly intelligent, reasonable person most of the time – but here he is, dancing along to the tune being played by the Bush administration (whose collective I.Q. probably doesn’t equal his) without seriously questioning any premises – theirs or his own.