What If They Gave A War And Europe Never Noticed?

A previous post posed a challenge to Europe: Iran. I foresaw failure for European diplomacy, and conflict without compromise at the UN Security Council and General Assembly. Commenting on the post, nick is upbeat:

The ones who stand to lose the most in this confrontation are the Powers That Be -- it is their properties that will be consumed in nuclear fire and their stocks which will go in the toilet in the event of the misuse of nuclear weapons. These people are simply not going to stand idly by while these nutjobs join the nuclear club. I'm not happy with the current scenario, but I'm not particularly concerned.

I'm generally optimistic--but not about Europe acting, or helping, to halt Iran's now-restarted nuclear program or more broadly to defend its way of life.

Yes, many nations that triggered or appeased radical Islam would be in the line of fire of a nuclear Iran. But would Europe accept any responsibility? Neither tolerance nor segregation will pacify Iran--Europe must be defended with force. Yet, "no-force" diplomacy is the EU's secular religion, obscuring the reality that soft power is . . . well . . . soft. Puny and powerless too--confined to toothless talk-talk forums; futile for defending the non-negotiable.

Assuming Europe engages, who has the better cards? Well, when Reagan and Thatcher won the Cold-War, Europe downsized defense, so that "America's defense budget dwarfs the next ten countries, combined." True, England and France still have nukes. But, according to Mark Steyn, Europe's cupboard otherwise is bare:

the U.S. military presence, the American security guarantee . . . liberated European budgets: instead of having to spend money on guns, they could concentrate on butter, and buttering up the voters. . . The "free world," as the Americans called it, was a free ride for everyone else. And having been absolved from the primal responsibilities of nationhood, it's hardly surprising that European nations have little wish to reshoulder them. In essence, the lavish levels of public health care on the Continent are subsidized by the American taxpayer. And this long-term softening of large sections of the West makes them ill-suited to resisting a primal force like Islam.

What about Iran? The nukes advantage Iran, given the risk of deterrence through mutually assured destruction. Moreover, Iran's upgraded some familiar weapons. Mortars have been re-branded in convenient vest form, emphasizing human, rather than remote, targeting. Grenades have been miniaturized and merged with cell phones. No need for a throw; instead, Islamic grenades are "planted" and cultivated in road-side beds--which also enables real-time Al Jazeera coverage. And, just like the Axis in the last European war, Iran deploys "weaponized law" to rationalize and accelerate Judenfrei and gay/civil-liberties/Christian/frei. Both the concealed explosives and Shari`ah statutes are optimized for regime-change--in this case, targeting the civilization formerly known as Western, European and Judeo-Christian.

Worse yet, Europe's handicapped by a weak tripwire--meaning war could go to end-game before anyone noticed. Distracted by their desire to shrink the rejected EU Constitution below phone-book bulk, the kumbayha cult might miss the first act. After all, the continent's had 135 years to learn war drums come from the East, and a half century to confuse the Western ocean's roar with airborne attack. So conditioned, an incremental and internal invasion could succeed by stealth, heralded, as Mark Steyn observed in the December 31st National Review, only by in-country cries: "For EU politicians, as those French and German poll numbers indicate, there’s not a lot of good options when half the babies in your maternity wards are Muslim." Adding to the confusion, Iran's lead role prunes parts previously played by covetous Germans, with the remainder potentially invisible to those still using blue-eyed, blond-haired "know your enemy" flashcards. So even absent long-range ICBMs, Iran or other radical Islamics could sneak attack from within.

The best hope for a timely warning is the impending Semicentennial breach of Belgian neutrality. True, the eyes of Brussels are fixed on Berlin and Washington. But when jihad plays Belgium, the likely first strike -- one prong terrorist bombs, another holy books -- targets a well-known but unguarded objective. So the initial attack's almost certain to succeed--loudly and publicly, alerting even the most insular.

Whatever the subtle success of Radical Islam, the preservation of Western Civilization may come to this: when Iran hits Brussels, even the EU will wake from its post-WWII nap, join the right side, and avenge the day when Koran and Kalashnikov combined to annihilate Manneken Pis.