Herbert London isn’t the sort of person to describe subtle nuances in cultural and political issues. As a commentator leading the right wing Hudson Institute, he writes of “self-described progressives who possess an eviscerated memory and are steeped in existential depravity. Having lived only in a debased culture, they have no standards on which to rely, except perhaps the popular dogma of environmentalism and the reflexive obligation to denounce all forms of ‘discrimination.’ For these people, rap is music—even art—and manners are unnecessary, arbitrary rules. Because they believe that knowledge is only a mouse click away (confusing it with mere information), they don’t memorize poems or sonnets, capitals, or mathematical formulas.” There’s not much question of where Mr. London stands.
These days, Herb London stands at the edge of the Middle East, eagerly hoping for war. London plays foreign policy psychic in a recent article he wrote for Family Security Matters, a right wing group that claims to be “engaging America’s families in our nation’s security”. How can America’s families be engaged in our nation’s security, when there’s no threat of any actual invasion across America’s borders? The model of security promoted by Family Security Matters consists mostly of the effort to ensure that American families remain as fearful as possible. The idea seems to be that scared American families will support extreme security measures.
London warns that expanded war in the Middle East is now inevitable: “It is no longer a question of whether war will occur, but rather when it will occur and where it will break out.” London writes as if America hasn’t been at war in the Middle East already, but never mind that. He’s speaking of a new threat.
London describes a “slide into warfare” that he says can only be stopped by forceful American intervention in Middle East affairs. But, what slide into warfare is London talking about?
London claims that the governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt are teetering on the verge of collapse. “Should either fall, all bets are off in the Middle East neighborhood,” he warns, and could lead to “the possible annihilation of Israel”.
These are ominous words, but they’re actually not describing any substantial current danger. Herbert London’s “slide into warfare” is entirely theoretical. It depends upon the collapse of either the government of Egypt or Saudi Arabia, which does not actually appear to be likely anytime soon, followed by another series of events that London supposes could only be counteracted by the United States.
I might as well write about a “slide into warfare” caused by a collapse of the government of the Ukraine. It would be pure speculation.
Why does Herbert London choose to speculate that a series of hypothetical events in the future has already made a new war in the Middle East inevitable? It seems to suit his ideological needs. If there wasn’t some big new threat, requiring American military action, what would Americans need to fear?
