Radical Islamists have virtually no military capability. That is why they hold little to no territory, have very little funding and even less political and diplomatic support.

Ideologically, their program is literally suicidal and deeply unappealling, not only in the West but in every corner of the Islamic world, save the most isolated and/or econcomically downtrodden and chaotic subregions.

Can any one of you who considers this tiny band of isolated, poorly funded, divided, suicidal religious freaks a signifant military threat please describe a scenario in which they might come to power?

Is the idea that after seizing power in Saudi Arabia, or Iraq, or Iran, they will then seize power in a second country, then a third and so on, until Europe, then America are surrounded?

Do neoconservatives really believe that radical Islam offers an ideological blueprint or practice for world domination? Do they really believe the philosophy is capable of sustaining an international empire?

I have yet to hear any con or neocon or paleocon or whatever explain why in the world they assign so much credibility to a freak show like radical Islam.

They seem to think that because the freaks can get ahold of WMD, they can pose a significant military threat. Far from it.

Radical Islam doesn’t rely on terrorism by choice. Terrorism is the only way it can survive as a military organization. The moment radical Islam is called on to govern anything, it will fail forthwith.

Iran’s theocracy certainly includes elements of radical Islam, and to the extent that it has, it has failed to extend its power in the region.

To be sure, Iran is now making advances in Iraq, and may well continue to pose an irritant in the region, but is highly unlikely to become an existential threat to the U.S. or Europe.

Radical Islam will go the way of radical Communism. It will collapse under its own contradictions and I’m guessing it will do so a lot faster than communism did.

Moderate Islam, of course, is the only force capable of putting the radicals out of the misery and in country after country, they are well on their way to doing so.

Of course, in places like Iraq, where chauvanism has sewn chaos, radical Islam thrives. But that will be relatively short-lived. Iraqis are already seeing that they don’t need Al Qaeda’s help to kick the Americans out.

It all hinges on whether China chooses to support its runaway military leaders when they eventually invade Taiwan, or not. If China pulls its support for the military adventurism, before or during the invasion, the military will either be broken apart by internal conflict, or obliterated by Taiwan’s US-supported military. If all of China gets behind the conquest of Taiwan, then the US will lose all its decades of investments in China overnight, which will suck for us, but hurt China even worse, forcing it into a DPRK-style military dictatorship that will quickly send China into the same abyss.

I didn’t say there was. Or did you think that anything that isn’t totalitarian is a democracy?

So the real threat is an axis of China-Russia-Middle East “Caliphate”, and PNAC argues that the US can block the emergence of that rival axis by more overtly and permanently controlling the Middle East.

So, is the PNAC stuff prominent NeoCon thinking or is it old news?

A Middle East power bloc would inevitably create an Axis alliance between China and Russia.

China needs fuel and energy, while Iran needs tech and weapons. A match made in heaven.

Thus the classic strategy is to divide your enemies up so they don’t get together and become a greater threat.

Surely, China is closer to becoming a great power rival than a Caliphate. Or am I missing something? Like a caliphate’s control of oil?

Oh, I get it. World-dominating. I don’t think that is what PNAC means by “great power rival” but I guess you can make that argument.