I think I’ve gotten into the habit of saying nice things about Charles Krauthammer. In my most recent post relating to Charlie, I went so far as to exclaim “Thank God for Charles Krauthammer! Pretty much.”. Well, that was then. Time to get nasty.
In his post that prompted my exclamation of “Thank God for Charles Krauthammer”, I noted that Charlie had labeled the defenestration of Jim Comey as a “political ax murder.” Well, that was also then. Now, Charlie is seriously tired of “the national obsession with every James Comey memo-to-self”. Instead, Charlie wants to talk about “the great Muslim civil war” between the Sunnis (good guys) and Shiites (bad guys).
Charlie would have us believe that Iran is determined to extend its control over Syria and thus the entire Middle East: “For Iran, Syria is the key, the central theater of a Shiite-Sunni war for regional hegemony.” Iran, of course, is opposed by “the Sunnis, moderate and Western-allied, led by Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Egypt and Jordan — with their Great Power patron, the United States, now (post-Obama) back in action.”
Uh-huh. “Moderate” Saudi Arabia, where political ax murders are performed with real blades (swords, actually). Moderate Saudi Arabia, ruled by an hereditary royal family, as opposed to Iran, a mixed theocracy cum democracy. Well, Charlie paints in black and white with this one–bad Shiites, good Sunnis–but he’s so desperate to change the subject from Comey that, well, let the K-Man speak for himself:
“The Iranian-Russian strategy is a nightmare for the entire Sunni Middle East. And for us too. The Pentagon seems bent on preventing it. Hence the cruise missile attack for crossing the chemical red line. Hence the recent fighter-bomber shoot-down.
"A reasonable U.S. strategy, given the alternatives. But not without risk. Which is why we need a national debate before we commit too deeply.”
Got that? A nightmare, but, still, let’s talk about whether we want to get involved. Sure, let’s talk! Let’s talk about, you know, anything that won’t lead to questions about, say, Donald Trump’s involvement with the Russian mafia, his own campaign’s involvement with Russian attempts to defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, or former national security advisor Michael Flynn’s remarkable appetite for foreign cash, or Donald Trump’s determined effort to reshape the U.S. security apparatus to serve his political ends and to blatently obstruct justice. Who wants to talk about stuff like that? Boring!
Afterwords
What about Israel? After all, Charlie’s all about the Muslims, isn’t he? Well, to skip the sarcasm, Benjamin Netanyahu, to maintain himself in power, has manufactured the myth that Iran is an existential threat to Israel, though it is not. Ben basically needs an existential threat, or why does Israel need him? And Charlie needs an existential threat as well, because otherwise why does the U.S. need to give $4 billion a year in aid to Israel, otherwise than to subsidize the U.S. arms industry, which is where most of that cash ends up? And why do we need to sell billions of dollars of weaponry to Saudi Arabia, so they can prosecute a brutal and pointless war against Yemen? Hey, Charlie, why don’t we have a debate about this stuff?
