Spengler is a pseudonym for a writer in the Asia Times who is often a source of wise counsel in complex matters. His recent column on George Bush and Pope Benedict provides considerable insight into the relationship between these two men. A similar relationship between the preceding Pope, John Paul II, and President Reagan had a great deal to do with the fall of the Soviet Union. Spengler writes,
Despite his position on Iraq, Benedict’s critics within the church regard him as a civilizational warrior as dangerous as the US president. Bush might denounce “Islamo-facism”, but continues to believe that Islam is a “religion of peace”. Muslims suspect that the pope wants to convert them, a threat they never have had to confront in Islam’s 1,500-year history.
Finally, someone has understood the dilemma that George Bush faced in 2001:
After the September 11, 2001, attacks, American intelligence had no means to determine which Muslim governments were in league with terrorists. Middle Eastern governments do not resemble Western nation-states so much as they do hotels at which diverse political factions can rent accommodations, including factions who provide weapons, passports, training and intelligence to the sort of men who flew planes into the World Trade Center. Elements within the governments of Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, among others, supported terrorists, besides Saddam.
The only way to resolve the matter quickly was to make a horrible example out of one of these regimes. That got the undivided attention of the others. “Kill the chicken, and let the monkey watch,” say the Chinese.
This is exactly why we invaded Iraq and it is tragic that the Bush people did not make a better attempt to explain this. Spengler is no latecomer to this view, as he explained at the time.
The West should be thankful that it has in US President George W Bush a warrior who shoots first and tells the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to ask questions later. Rarely in its long history has the West suffered by going to war too soon. On the contrary: among the wars of Western history, the bloodiest were those that started too late. Why should that be the case? The answer, I believe, is that keeping the peace requires prospective combatants to maintain the balance of power, for example between Athens and Sparta in the 5th century BC, between Catholic and Protestant states in the 17th century AD, and between the Central Powers and the Allies at the turn of the 20th century. Once powers truly are balanced, however, neither side can win, except by a devastating war of attrition. Postponing war therefore creates equally matched opposing blocs who eventually will annihilate each other.
Spengler explains why he opposed the attempt to turn Iraq into a modern nation, the first in the Arab world. I believe he is wrong here but the attempt was certainly costly and teetered on the brink 18 months ago. Only a REAL change agent in the Army, General Petraeus, was able to bring it off.
The future is still in doubt but the cooperation of George Bush and Pope Benedict may have significant influence on how that turns out.