Nothing stands still; "Stability" is a fancy term to dignify laziness and complacency as sophistication

When Amr Moussa, secretary-general of the Arab League, warned that the U.S. invasion of Iraq would "destabilize" the entire region, he was right

writes Mark Steyn in the Washington Times.

That's why it was such a great idea.

Noting that the "International Monetary Fund noted in November that the Iraqi economy is already outperforming all its Arab neighbors", he adds that

The "realpolitik" types spent so long worshipping at the altar of stability they were unable to see it was a cult for psychos. The geopolitical scene is never stable. It's always dynamic.

If the Western world decides in 2005 it can "contain" President Sy Kottik of Wackistan indefinitely, that doesn't mean the relationship between the two parties is set in aspic.

Wackistan has a higher birthrate than the West, so after 40 years of "stability," there are a lot more Wackistanis and a lot fewer Frenchmen. And Wackistan has immense oil reserves, and President Kottik has used that oil wealth to fund radical schools and mosques in hitherto moderate parts of the Muslim world.

Cheap air travel and the Internet and ATM machines that take every bank card on the planet and the freelancing of nuclear technology mean Wackistan's problems are no longer confined to Wackistan: For a few hundred bucks, they can be outside the Empire State Building within seven hours.

Nothing stands still. "Stability" is a fancy term to dignify laziness and complacency as sophistication.

If you want a good example of excessive deference to the established order, look no further than Iraq. I am often asked about the scale of the insurgency and whether this doesn't prove we armchair warriors vastly underestimated things, etc.

I usually reply that, if you rummage through the archives, you'll find I wanted Iraq liberated before the end of August 2002. The bulk of the military were already in place, sitting in the Kuwaiti desert twiddling their thumbs.

But President Bush was prevailed upon to go "the extra mile" at the United Nations, mainly for the sake of Tony Blair. And thanks to the machinations of Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder and company, the extra mile wound up being the scenic route through six months of diplomatic gridlock while Washington gamely auditioned any casus belli that might win the favor of the president of Guinea's witchdoctor. All that happened in that time was that the fringe "peace" movement vastly expanded and annexed most of the Democratic Party.

Given all that went on in America, Britain, France, etc. during the interminable "extra mile," it would be idiotic to assume that, with an almighty invasion force squatting on his borders for six months, Saddam just listened to his Sinatra LPs. He was very busy, as were the Islamists, and Iran, and Syria.

The result is not only an insurgency far more virulent than it would have been if Washington had followed my advice rather than Tony's and invaded in August 2002, but also a broader range of enemies who learned a lot about how "world" — i.e., European — opinion could be played off against us.