Max Boot, conservative pundit and advisor to the McCain campaign, asserts in a recent column that the reason Syria and Iran don’t do what America tells them is that Bush isn’t enough of a militarist to scare them, as witness he hasn’t launched attacks on either country.

“It is hard to see how Bush could reverse this decline in America’s “fear factor” during the remaining year of his presidency,” Broot wrote. “That will be the job of the next president. And who would be the most up to the task?

To answer that question, ask yourself which presidential candidate an Ahmadinejad, Assad or Kim would fear the most … In my (admittedly biased) opinion, the leading candidate to scare the snot out of our enemies is a certain former aviator who has been noted for his pugnacity and his unwavering support of the American war effort in Iraq. Ironically, John McCain’s bellicose aura could allow us to achieve more of our objectives peacefully because other countries would be more afraid to mess with him than with most other potential occupants of the Oval Office — or the current one.”

This is a theme which crops up in various forms among right-wing pundits: Our problems in the Mideast and Iraq in general aren’t because insurgency is so difficult, or because the Bush administration bungled the occupation, or because our military is straining to the breaking point, they’re happening because we’re not bloodthirsty enough. Once we drop a few bombs on Syria, and Iran, and maybe kill a few thousand more Iraqis, well, those impertinent fuzzy-wuzzies (not a phrase they actually use, but it seems to be lurking in the background) will learn to fear us, and then they’ll accept their proper and subordinate position in the world.

Closely allied to this is the argument (not limited to the right wing, unfortunately) that the best way to avoid war is to have someone in the White House who’s an open and blatant warmonger, because that’s the best way to scare the rest of the world into obeying America (because any third-world nation that doesn’t do what we want must be Evil and deserving of our wrath).

After all, launching one unprovoked and needless war worked out so well for us … oh, wait, it didn’t, did it?

And it was Broot, along with countless other conservative commentators who supported the war and predicted a victorious cakewalk, a magnificent triumph, the beginning of the American Empire (one or two conservatives have quite specifically called for one as the best way to save the world).

Given how totally, utterly and consistently wrong they were, it’s amazing anyone still listens.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.