At the VDH-apolooza at the Kennedy School last night, Professor Hanson’s sparring partner was Lawrence Korb, one-time Undersecretary of State in the Reagan administration. I didn’t know much about Korb until last night, but it became rather apparent that he was an unrepentant member of the so-called “Realist” school of foreign policy when he lamented the fact that the current Bush administration doesn’t listen to Brent Scowcroft. When Korb mentioned his fondness for Scowcroft, only the fact that I was seated in the Press section prevented me from giving the mere mention of Scowcroft’s name the Haman treatment. (That’s one for all you lantzmen in the crowd.)

Later in the night, Korb gave a brilliant display of the kind of reckless amorality that characterizes the Scowcroft school of foreign policy. His comments also made it clear why idealistic liberals used to loathe such crass expressions of realpolitik before they subsumed all other intellectual and geopolitical concerns to their raw hatred of George W. Bush.

In his closing statement, Korb saluted our hasty withdrawal from Vietnam, arguing (without foundation) that were it not for this ignominious retreat, we might not have won the Cold War. But what about the millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians who perished as a direct result of America’s hasty and feckless withdrawal from the conflict? Worry not – Doctor Korb addressed that matter, too. He acknowledged that it was a shame, but sometimes in foreign policy bad things have to happen.

Professor Hanson can support or deny this, but I’m pretty sure his jaw hit the floor when he heard this comment. Reducing the deaths of millions to the old saw that “to make an omelet you have to break some eggs” seemed unduly cold and clinical, even for a Brent Scowcroft admirer.

KORB’S SHOCKING CLOSING STATEMENT got me thinking about the creeping Narcissism that often overtakes American foreign policy and its analysts. The National Intelligence Estimate that came out a few weeks ago was a great example of this phenomenon. The entire document egotistically assumed that Islamic Fascism somehow had to be a response to American actions. The ignorance that this paper showed regarding the history of Jihad was truly stunning, and it was both amazing and sobering that this piece of tripe represented the combined best efforts of our 784 separate intelligence agencies.

You don’t have to read my friend Andy Bostom’s peerless “The Legacy of Jihad” to get a sense of things (although you should). You even don’t have to read my friend Walid Phares’ brilliant “Future Jihad” to understand what animates our enemy (although again, you really should). All you have to do is open your eyes.

German operas aren’t cancelled because the original name for the invasion of Afghanistan was allegedly culturally insensitive. Danish cartoons don’t provoke riots because George W. Bush once used the word “crusade”. Simply put, the movement we’re fighting does not have its provenance in American foreign policy. Only the American foreign policy establishment could be so filled with self-regard as to believe otherwise.

Perhaps is it is an inevitable consequence of the American Century that those who reach the top of America’s power structure will come to feel that nothing happens in the world without some sort of American action serving as a catalyst. This view, however, betrays a profound ignorance of not-so-distant history.

Nazism arose because of features unique to Germany, the German people and their history. The same was true of Japanese Imperialism and Italian fascism, and the same is true today. Radical Islam is the product of an ancient belief system. The ideology is independent of Western influence or actions. The only bearing Western behavior has on Radical Islam is that we provide the petro-billions that extend the Islamists’ reach.

But the notion that America can modify its behavior and in so doing mollify our enemy’s pure hatred is wishful thinking. And dangerously wishful thinking at that.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.