Dire Consequences

"As always, victory finds a hundred fathers, but defeat is an orphan."

     - Count Galeazzo Giano (1903 - 1944)

One of my all-time favorite columnists is Victor Davis Hanson. He has written an op-ed at National Review Online, titled "Critical Mass." I think anyone who is interested in what's happening in the Middle East should read it.

Hanson's premise is that at some point in any conflict, the ultimate outcome becomes clear:

"...the pulse of the war really quickens, as allies, neutrals, and observers all scramble to adjust their allegiances to match the inevitable verdict to come on the battlefield...no one wishes to lose, or even be associated with defeat."

He cites case after historical case to support his theory: Athens/Sparta, the U.S. Civil War, WW II, and the fall of the Soviet Union. In each of these conflicts, countries began lining up with the perceived winners as the victor became evident, valuing power over principles as they did so. This, Hanson feels, will begin happening in the Middle East as our military continues to isolate, capture and kill the extremists operating in Iraq. 

He further suggests that Syria and Iran, who now allow terrorists to cross their borders and operate in Iraq, should consider the consequences if another attack occurs on U.S. soil:

"...if there were another September 11, then all voluntary restrictions on the use of the full extent of American power would be off--and the response would be too terrible to contemplate." 

I don't know about you, but I interpret "response" to mean the annihilation of Damascus and Tehran, and that's frightening to consider. But what would we do if a nuclear device were detonated in San Francisco? Sit around and wait for another strike, or retaliate in kind? I think we know the answer to that, and hopefully Mr. Assad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei do too.