Adam Serwer brings the appropriate amount of mockery to bear upon Bill Kristol’s latest argument for giving war a chance, but it needs to be pointed out how crass this is:

Although President Bush spoke during his second term about “keeping the military option on the table,” it became apparent to Tehran that, distracted by other issues, Washington would not back up its words with actions. Now the Obama administration has virtually given up even referring to the use of force — except when administration officials warn of the supposed catastrophic consequences of any military attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Indeed, the Obama administration seems much more taken with the urgency of blocking an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear program than with stopping Iran’s nuclear program. And one routinely hears how very, very dangerous any use of military force against Iran would be.

What other issues was Bush distracted by? Oh, you know, that other war (Iraq) that Kristol helped steer us into, and the other other war (Afghanistan) that we’re still fighting now largely because of the decision to invade Iraq before we’d finished the job in Afghanistan. It’s unsurprising that Kristol doesn’t mention this, because that would require him to recognize that launching new and glorious military interventions entails serious costs and trade-offs, and he is simply unable to do that. In Kristol’s world, bad things only ever result from not launching new and glorious military interventions.

Arguing against the fairly overwhelming consensus that a U.S. military attack on Iran would produce a series of disastrous consequences, Kristol and co-writer Jamie Fly simply insist that “if we carried out a targeted campaign against Iran’s nuclear facilities, against sites used to train and equip militants killing American soldiers, and against certain targeted terror-supporting and nuclear-enabling regime elements, the effects are just as likely to be limited.”

It’s unclear, for example, that Iran would want to risk broadening the conflict and creating the prospect of regime decapitation. Iran’s rulers have shown that their preeminent concern is maintaining their grip on power. If U.S. military action is narrowly targeted, and declared to be such, why would Iran’s leaders, already under pressure at home, want to escalate the conflict, as even one missile attack on a U.S. facility or ally or a blockade of the Strait would obviously do?

While I’m pleased that Kristol and Fly are now on record in support of the idea that the Iranian regime is rational, and against the nonsensical idea that it desires nuclear martyrdom, it hardly needs to be pointed out that “Hey, there’s a chance that the very worst might not happen!” does not constitute a solid argument for military action. Hard as it is for some to grasp, the simple fact is that there are problems in foreign policy that cannot be solved by American ordnance.

It’s also worth noting that frequent Weekly Standard contributor Reuel Marc Gerecht has an op-ed in today’s New York Times arguing for more explicit U.S. support for Iran’s pro-democracy Green movement — yet it’s hard to think of anything that would extinguish that movement more quickly and effectively than following Kristol and Fly’s advice.

This past weekend at the Texas Republican state convention, delegates voted to include a provision in the state party’s platform advocating for a state immigration law similar to Arizona’s SB-1070. The move bucked Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX), who previously stated that such a law “would not be the right direction for Texas.” An overwhelming majority of Latino voters oppose the Arizona law and believe it will lead to racial profiling, but the newly named chairman of the Texas Republican Party, Steve Munisteri, still prioritizes reaching out to the “burgeoning Hispanic community.” As part of that effort, the Texas GOP launched a YouTube campaign yesterday to attract more Latinos to the party.

Despite the fact that the new Texas Republican Party platform also proposes “making American English the official language of Texas and the United States,” the first video of their Latino recruitment campaign is entirely in Spanish. It doesn’t touch on the immigration issue, but it does feature a series of Latinos listing reasons why they are Republican. A belief in “the right to liberty and freedom,” “equality,” and the “American Dream,” are among the justifications listed. The video even features immigration attorney Ivan Andarza, a Rick Perry supporter whose Twitter feed might also suggest that he is also opposed to the Arizona law.

Watch it:

Eric Garza, vice chairman of the Latino National Republican Coalition in Texas, says he does not believe “immigration issues” will sink the party’s Hispanic recruiting efforts. “I think the Hispanic community is going to realize that Governor Perry and the Republican Party really do have the answers to securing our borders and taking care of our immigration policy, at least here in the state of Texas,” says Garza. According to Garza, Latinos are more concerned with other issues like jobs and the economy anyway.

However, while Latinos care about a lot of issues other than immigration, an anti-immigrant platform is often all it takes to turn a large number of Latinos off from a candidate. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that “conservative Hispanic voters, in particular, say they feel betrayed by Republican Party leaders who have supported the law.” Massey Villarreal, a Houston businessman and past national chairman of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly, told the Wall Street Journal, “[i]t’s insulting to have Republican leaders across the country applauding this racist law. I’m sure this is going to hurt the Republican Party.” In fact, it already has. In 2008, Latinos basically “jumped ship” and overwhelmingly supported Democrats shortly following the highly polarized immigration debate of 2007.

While most Latinos believe in the ideals mentioned in the Texas GOP video, the majority also think that police crackdowns on undocumented immigrants pose a direct threat to those liberties and that the Arizona law goes too far. The Houston Chronicle has pointed out that Latinos will make up 78 percent of Texas’ population growth over the next 30 years.

The Associated Press is reporting that New Mexico gubernatorial candidate Tom Mullins (R) that the U.S. could deter undocumented immigrants from entering the U.S. by placing landmines at the border:

The Republican nominee for a New Mexico congressional seat suggested during a radio interview that the United States could place land mines along the Mexican border to secure the international boundary. [...]

In the May 18 interview with KNMX radio in Las Vegas, N.M., Mullins says the U.S. could mine the border, install barbed wire and post signs directing would-be border jumpers to cross legally at designated checkpoints.

Mullins is now claiming that he was merely articulating a suggestion that was put forth while he was campaigning and that he does not support such drastic measures. Regardless of his intentions, the broader context in which Mullins’ comments fit is still troubling.

Last week, a 14-year-old boy was shot and killed by a border agent who claims that the victim was throwing rocks at him. The incident has led more than a few people to point out that the situation at the U.S. – Mexico border “looks too much like Israel and Palestine for comfort.” In more moderate terms, University of Texas-El Paso political science professor Tony Payan worried that border agents “may feel emboldened now to see themselves not just as law enforcement but as soldiers on a battlefield, defending the country against an invading enemy of Mexicans.” Mullins’ comments further enforce this twisted view of the border.

In the end, Mullins’ suggestion, together with the passage of Arizona’s draconian immigration law and the endless slew of calls for more border security, are all based on the misguided premise that the border is a place of “murder, terror, and mayhem.” However, the facts show just the opposite. FBI statistics show that crime is declining in U.S. border towns across the U.S. While it’s true that the U.S. is engaged in the war on drugs, it’s not a war that will be won by deploying the national guard, planting landmines, or even completing the dang fence.

Mullins was also the only Republican New Mexico congressional candidate to immediately come out in support of Arizona’s immigration law.