Gloomy Hawks

Via Sullivan (a common refrain of mine, I know), we learn of the 'gloomy hawk,' a figure of speech coined by Stanley Kurtz to describe his sentiments on war and peace:

Meanwhile, short of a preemptive war, Iran is bound to get the bomb. No grand bargain or set of economic sanctions can deter it — especially now that Iran is convinced of its success in creating havoc for the West, and in consolidating popular support through its proxy attacks on Western interests. As Ian Bremmer reports in “What the Israeli-Hezbollah War Means for Iran,” Iran is convinced it’s winning, while America and Europe are increasingly convinced that a nuclear-armed Iran would be an intolerable danger to their interests.“Imagine...how much more dangerous the war in Lebanon would be if Iran had a nuclear weapon.”

At the same time, we were reminded this morning how a handful of terrorists have the potential to bring down airplanes and, barring that, cause economic difficulties and massive inconveniences for the West. Even if a mere 100 people world-wide harbor these ambitions, the force-multiplying ability of common household items as explosives makes them as deadly as an air force - and undeterrable, to boot.

Perhaps 'gloomy hawkdom' is all we have to look forward to after five-and-a-half years of (sad to say) fairly inconclusive fighting from our perspective. The regimes we've created and supported as bulwarks against Islamist terror are unable to prevent the spread of violence in and from their own countries. The number and ability of undeterrable terrorists has not shrunk. Our own resolve, meanwhile, has predictably weakened in the face of incompetent and disorganized (to say nothing of immoral) leadership and a long fight.

Is the West becoming one giant Israel?