Something is going on in the Middle East

What are we to make of these reoccurring stories of various weapons of mass destruction incidents in Syria, whether the accident in July of Iranians and Syrians arming Scud missiles with mustard (or sarin?) gas, or recent Syrian nuclear depositories being bombed by Israelis.

A number of issues arise: are the Gulf monarchies, Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan essentially staying mum, with the quiet understanding that Israel is too be given a green light, if it acts stealthily, to contain these threats?

Is there a link to Saddam’s former arsenal and fugitive technicians—the now taboo missing WMD? Other clerical statements from once Sunni radicals, and recent polls of the Arab Street reveal a Sunni reaction to al Qaedism, as if the Anbar syndrome is spreading at the nation state level.

I know the anti-war talking points are that Iran is in “the driver’s seat” after our “catastrophe” in Iraq. But that pessimism is premature, and in fact probably flat wrong. Our lining up of concerned anti-Iranian allies in the Middle East, Europe, and inside Iraq, Iran’s own suicidal economic policies, and ethnic tensions, and the position of American troops near the border, have in fact weakened Iran. If we can turn Shiite militias, arrest even more Iranians inside Iraq, and get the Europeans on board for stiff sanctions, the regime will be isolated as never before. Ditto Syria.

When one looks at recent events in Lebanon with the crushing of the terrorist camp, the new generation in Libya, and the isolation of Hamas, the entire region is now in flux. And that is not necessarily bad, given its history the last quarter-century.

If I were the Democrats, I would keep silent and watch, and taper off from the “Bush’s Middle East is a disaster” line, especially if Afghanistan and Iraq settle down. Why not brag and try to take credit for the surge—claiming their criticism resulted in more troops and changes at the Pentagon?

The Moveon.org ad was a political disaster, akin to the Chicago convention of 1968. That the candidates now have a deer-in-the-headlights look to questions about it shows how invested they are in the Cindy Sheehan/Michael Moore/Hollywood wing that gives them very little wiggle room, but apparently lots of money and threats. The Republicans faced the same challenge in the 1950s with the McCarthyites, anti-Semites, John Birch Society sympathizers, and neo-Confederates, and finally shed them, and the Republicans, despite minority party status, went on to take the White House for 36 years of the 56 between 1953 and 2008.

We have well over a year until the election, and many things can happen that we scarcely expect.

From Middle East to Midwest

I am finishing up my yearly month-long teach stint at Hillsdale College during annual vacation from the Hoover Institution—the fourth visit in a row. It is wrong to think that the college is exclusively doctrinaire conservative. True, many students tend to be center/right, but they have all sorts of different positions—conservative Democrats, Neocons, libertarians, mainstream Republicans, paleo-cons, and about as many liberals as there are conservative students on most other campuses.

The college is in the midst of a renaissance. A massive building program is reconfiguring the entire campus with a new quad of tasteful brick buildings and a student center. There are lots of new faculty, and visiting professors constantly. I have lectured at a number of campuses; but by any fair standard the Hillsdale history faculty seems one of the most interesting, well-rounded, and accomplished around.

The college is completing a massive fund-raising campaign; even more buildings and programs are planned. Some intellectual or cultural events are scheduled each week. One example: a recent Vietnam conference for the students and visitors had Mark Moyar, HR McMaster, Lewis Sorley, Michael Lind, Makubin Owens, and Michael Medved who went over all the controversies—how we got in, the nature of the fighting, how we got out—and the domestic political reaction to it all. These symposia are characteristic, not unusual.

The college president, Larry Arnn, is literally remaking the infrastructure and faculty profile. I think within a few years, Hillsdale will clearly be one of the top five or six private liberal undergraduate colleges in the country by almost any measure one uses, and the president acknowledged as the nation’s best.

For a Californian, the real adjustment is the larger culture of the rural, small-town Midwest. It is rare in California to see families say grace at meals; here common. I was thought to be an anomaly at a California campus for having three children; here faculty with five and six (even eight or more) kids is not uncommon. Parking lots in California are mostly full of Japanese models; here they’re rare. Life is much slower and methodical; you don’t see the Bay-Area yuppie model filtering down as it does elsewhere in the West: the nest of hardwood floors, stainless steel appliances, granite counters, in which each evening the power couple tosses a salad and pasta, and grills shish-kebab, with lightly cooked vegetables to jazz or classical music.

Food, of course, is radically different. My impressions after eating out for four yearly visits here is that most dishes are Germanic—sausages, muffins, mush, grits, eggs for breakfast; heavy, well-done meat dishes and potatoes for lunch and dinner; salads with far too much dressing, milk even served as beverage.

The recession in rural Michigan is striking—homes for sale everywhere, everything (except gas) about 20% cheaper than in California. Rural southern Fresno County, ground zero of illegal immigration, seems in comparison far wealthier, more new cars, houses, and far more shopping centers and frenzied activity. Whole factories and plants are shut down here. At local food markets I see family after family with food stamps. The state as a whole seems in big trouble and listless, something like California around 2000 during the financial meltdown and the bleak Gray Davis years.

Bipartisan consensus?

One thing both parties should consent to is some sort of energy policy (more drilling off the coasts and in Anwar, more nuclear power, no tariffs on imported ethanol, more alternate fuels, more coal, more conservation) that cuts our daily imported appetite by about 5 million barrels and helps to collapse the world price of petroleum. If we could get it down to $30 a barrel. Putin, Chavez, Morales, Ahmadinejad, the House of Saud—all would start floundering since these countries can’t make anything anyone wants.

By the same token, let us pray that we will start restoring fiscal sanity and balanced budgets, trimming the debt, and trying to reduce trade deficits to whittle down the $1.5 trillion held by Japanese and Chinese banks.

I know the arguments well of the advantages of debts, deficits, and a weak dollar, but lost in the discussion is the psychological element: Americans simply don’t like being the weak financial player on the world scene, and are not convinced that borrowing and weak currency explain our high growth, low employment, and low inflation economy.