Paleocon Takedown There's a nice takedown of Pat Buchanan's latest by Chris Johnson at Midwest Conservative Journal. I have to say that I expected more sympathy for the paleocon position from America's heartland (just as I expect more sympathy for the neocon position from the coasts), but Johnson plays against type. A sample:

Now look to Iran. With Americans occupying Iraq, Iran is completely surrounded: Americans and Turks to the west, U.S. power in the Gulf and Arabian Sea to the south, in Afghanistan to the east and in the old Soviet republics to the north. U.S. warplanes will be positioned to interdict any flights to Lebanon to support Hezbollah. So what's the downside? Hezbollah kills innocent people, Pat. I would think anything that hurts them is a good thing. Iraq is the key to the Middle East. As long as we occupy Iraq, we are the hegemonic power in the region. And after we occupy it, a window of opportunity will open – to attack Syria and Iran before they acquire weapons of mass destruction. Fine with me. I'm of the opinion that two states who don't like us and who quite openly support terrorism shouldn't have weapons of mass destruction at all. But if you're OK with Iran having nukes or chemical weapons... No wonder Ariel Sharon and his Amen Corner are exhilarated. They see America's war on Iraq as killing off one enemy and giving Israel freedom to deal summarily with two more: Hezbollah and the Palestinians. Two jumps ahead of us, the Israelis are already talking up the need for us to deal with Libya, as well. Took you long enough to work them in. Again, Pat, I can't for the life of me see a downside here. Israel seems to be close to neutralizing Hamas and other such Palestinian murderers well before we've even begun with Iraq. If our enterprise helps them take out Hezbollah, so much the better.

This whole exchange reminds me of one thing I really can't understand about the paleocons - the sympathy for the Arab world. Buchanan, for example, shows a bizarre concern for the welfare of Hezbollah and a curious tranquility on the question of a nuclear-powered Saddam Hussein. Many of the paleocons at AntiWar have displayed similar attitudes. I have some honest questions for the paleocons: Why do you think that dictatorships can be trusted with nuclear weapons? Why do you think an alliance with the Arab/Muslim world as it currently stands is in our long term interests? Do you really think that Israel is less of an ally than Saudi Arabia or Syria?