Michael B. Duff ([info]michaelduff) wrote,
@ 2004-02-18 20:44:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Lileks nails it to the wall

Taking some very satisfying shots at a series of easy targets.

I don't really like the Bush Doctrine, okay?

After 9-11, I thought we should confine our efforts to the Al Qaeda organization. Instead, Bush decided to condemn half the Middle East with his Axis of Evil speech and roll tanks into Iraq.

It bothered me. It still bothers me. But dammit, if you look at the patterns, it seems to be working. The Middle East thinks Bush is batshit crazy, and their governments are afraid of us. Do you get that? The bad guys are afraid of us, because against all logic and common sense, we went into Iraq and we took Saddam down.

We ignored all the reasonable advice from Asia and Europe and people like me, and we went in with guns blazing. We've paid a terrible price in men and money, and we're still there.

What's the lesson? Fuck with America and we will intervene, flagrantly, in the Middle East. So, if you want us to go home, what should you do? What will happen if we get attacked again? What will happen to the governments of Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia if Al Qaeda sets off a nuke in Times Square?

You think we'll just pack up and go home? Or will we stick our meddling capitalist fingers in every Middle Eastern cesspool on the planet, hoping to turn up a needle in the haystack?

Middle Eastern governments want us to leave them alone. They'll snipe at us when they feel protected, funneling money to terrorist organizations when they think they won't be traced. But what happens when we follow that money home? What happens when their attempts to scare us backfire, and the crazy American president starts taking out dictators in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I'll tell you what happens. The money dries up, and governments that used to wink and nod at terrorism get on their secret satelite phones and tell their extremists to cool it, unless they want to see Marines taking showers in the palace.

Bush wants to be like Reagan, and he has succeeded. Everybody thought Reagan was crazy, when he went on TV and said, "We begin bombing in five minutes." His comments scared the shit out of people. It scared us in America, and more important, it scared our enemies.

In 2001, New York was burning and we were afraid. Today, there are American flags flying in Baghdad and our enemies are afraid.

I don't have access to all the documents, but I must entertain the possibility, the possibility that the Bush Doctrine is working. We have been relatively safe since 9-11. Iraq is a hot zone, but there have been no major attacks on U.S. soil. Why? Because the people who finance terrorism are afraid of us.

We will be hit again, okay? That fear has limits, and Bush is pissing a lot of people off. But tyrants around the world are making compromise noises because we have put the fear of God in them. And if Kerry wins this election, all of that progress will be rolled back.

Europe will love us. The UN will praise us. The Arab world will breathe a huge sigh of relief. And money will start trickling back into Al Qaeda's coffers. The bad guys will tighten their grip on their respective populations, and the price we have paid will have been paid for nothing.



Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

(Post a new comment)

The Bush Doctrine
(Anonymous)
2004-02-18 07:49 pm UTC (link)
You got it in one, Michael!

Tish

(Reply to this)

Your assesment of the Bush doctrine
(Anonymous)
2004-02-18 07:50 pm UTC (link)
Michael,

How refreshing to hear a person who was against the war actually see the benefits and show concern with what reversing course now would do. Glad to see you aren't blinded by the 'hate Bush' garbage.

Clark

(Reply to this)

Middle Eastern opinion of Bush
(Anonymous)
2004-02-18 08:02 pm UTC (link)
I agree with what you say, but would raise one point.

You say, "The Middle East thinks Bush is batshit crazy...." How do you know that they think he's crazy, rather than say, determined and strong? Why is it "crazy" to respond forcefully and preemptively to a potential threat in this new age where we've learned the hard way that the worst really can happen?

I think the whole Middle Eastern culture is based around saving face and appearing strong. Bush appears very strong and no-nonsense to them. He takes action. He doesn't just talk, talk, talk and shoot a few cruise missles. It's the diplomatic language that tyrants understand.

I think our foreign policy ought to be something like what I understand is an unofficial motto of the Marines: "your best friend or your worst enemy."

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Middle Eastern opinion of Bush
(Anonymous)
2004-02-19 05:17 am UTC (link)
I agree with what Bush is doing, AND I like him....AND....

I LIKE BAT-SHIT CRAZY! heh! Crazy like a fox, that is.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Middle Eastern opinion of Bush - (Anonymous), 2004-02-20 03:37 pm UTC
Re: Middle Eastern opinion of Bush - (Anonymous), 2004-02-22 09:01 am UTC
Yep
(Anonymous)
2004-02-18 08:04 pm UTC (link)
you've nailed it.

(Reply to this)


(Anonymous)
2004-02-18 08:09 pm UTC (link)
I remember talking to a friend on September 11th and saying that one of the things that has to happen is for somebody to go into Iraq and find out what the hell is going on there. There is more than one path of "logic and common sense" that you can follow and most of the actions Bush has taken make perfect sense to people who think a certain way. I guess I'm one of them. Nice of you to give the man some much-deserved credit though. I can't imagine why anybody would want his job.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Self delusion
(Anonymous)
2004-07-31 11:07 am UTC (link)
When will you realise that 9-11 had NOTHING TO DO WITH IRAQ. Al-Qaeda grew from elements of the Taliban (trained and equipped by the CIA as former anti-communist Islamists) and had its spiritual origins in Saudi Arabia, with foreign cells in Gernmany and the US. THERE WAS NO LINK WITH SADDAM. Saddam's Baathist regime reviled Islamic fundamentalists and vowed to suppress their growth.

The twisted notion that somehow Saddam had ties with Al-Qaeda is simply the result of a scurrilous manipulation of post-911 psychology by neo-conservatives. TO INSTILL THE BELIEF THAT IRAQ WAS A SUPPORTER OF ISLAMIST TERRORISM THAT HELPED THE 911 ATTACKS. Bullshit. Just THINK - yes, Iraq liberated from Saddam but now a breeding ground for an unholy alliance between Baathist-Islamic terrorists WHERE THERE PREVIOUSLY WAS NONE. Bush has an agenda more governed by control of Middle Eastern resources and cow-towing to Israel than a genuine concern at advancing democracy.

WAKE UP. Ask yourself why is it that Bush had financial ties with the Bin Ladens or resisted intelligence activities and pressure on the Saudis. Then consider the chilling lesson that 911 could and should have been prevented. then there would have been no war in Iraq.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

The Bush Doctrine Today
(Anonymous)
2004-02-18 08:19 pm UTC (link)
Sir,
Concur yr analysis.

When serving in America's intelligence services, on Freedom's front-line along the Korean DMZ, my job was Voice Traffic Analyst and I was a Korean linguist. Days added into weeks into months of focused collection, orientation, analysis and derivation... and I'd send a report to HQ, which report may or may not have been forwarded to the basement of the White House...

But the highest award, the greatest achievement we could earn while on that dangerous, sub-Siberian, bitter-cold outpost was: "Concur yr analysis."

Kudos, Kid!
kdean@knu2.com

(Reply to this)

Umm, yeah
(Anonymous)
2004-02-18 08:20 pm UTC (link)
Maybe he isn't a total moron with stings pulled by craven plutocratic Jews.

Maybe, just maybe, he takes seriously the job of President and the defense of this country.

Just like he says.

Best part - he does it for you whether you believe him or appreciate it or not.

(Reply to this)

Giving the other side it's due
(Anonymous)
2004-02-18 08:21 pm UTC (link)
One of the things I like most about Mr. Duff's piece is that he is gracious enough to give a little credit where credit is due. He does call Mr. Bush "batshit crazy" and implies that his actions made no logical sense at all, but for a couple years now Mr. Bush's political opponents have been so vituperous and biting in their relentless criticism that it's refreshing to read an opponent of his actually say something modestly positive. It makes me inclined to give weight to other things Mr. Duff might have to say.

It irritates me that the Democrats and the left demonize Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. I can understand disagreeing with their policies, but why must the men themselves be constantly characterized as corrupt liars? Isn't it possible the Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney are honestly doing the very best they know how to do, and truly have the country's best interests at heart? I've seen no evidence at all that anything to the contrary is true, but their political opponents are so downright rude and imbalanced in their criticisms that it just makes for shouting and hard feelings. Aren't we all on the same side here? Don't we all have the same fundamental goals, to make this country a great place to live and a noble example for the world? That's why when I hear someone spit out "Bush LIED!" or "Cheney's a front for BIG OIL!" I can't hear anything else they say after that.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Giving the other side it's due
(Anonymous)
2004-02-18 08:28 pm UTC (link)
Nitpit alert! :)

Mr Duff said people in the Middle East think Bust is "batshit crazy", not that he himself thinks this (although he might, who knows heh)

Otherwise agree however

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Giving the other side it's due - [info]michaelduff, 2004-02-18 08:34 pm UTC
Re: Giving the other side it's due - (Anonymous), 2004-02-18 08:54 pm UTC
Re: Giving the other side it's due - (Anonymous), 2004-02-19 12:41 am UTC
Re: Giving the other side it's due - (Anonymous), 2004-02-19 07:10 am UTC
Re: Giving the other side its due - (Anonymous), 2004-02-19 05:06 pm UTC
Scared?
(Anonymous)
2004-02-18 08:52 pm UTC (link)
Speak for yourself. It takes more than that to scare me.

(Reply to this)

You got it
(Anonymous)
2004-02-18 09:00 pm UTC (link)
Came to your site via Instapundit. I am a very rare creature, a San Franciscan who's in favor of Bush' war...and for precisely the reasons you lay out. Its "meta-message" is that if anyone in the Muslim world helps a terrorist attack on us again, shit will happen... on them. I wish to God Bush had been able to say this clearly and upfront. I don't know if he and his advisers found it strategically unwise or what. WMD's always have been beside the point. The point has been to hit back, hard, so as to prevent a repeat of 9.11

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: You got it
(Anonymous)
2004-02-18 09:52 pm UTC (link)
From the Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People on Sept 20 2001:

Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Some people (San Fran Residence, Leftist and anti-war types) were appalled and have made sneering commemts about it ever since but it was made clearly and upfront!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: You got it - (Anonymous), 2004-02-19 05:12 pm UTC
Re: You got it - (Anonymous), 2004-02-20 03:46 pm UTC

(Anonymous)
2004-02-18 09:01 pm UTC (link)
You have provided a fascinating analysis. However, you have left out some details, such as the definition of "working." As in "the Bush doctrine is working." If "working" means stoic acceptance of our national dependence on foreign oil and thus removing motivation for renewable energy development, then I guess it's working. If "working" means giving us an excuse to go in and build a nation to suit our needs, a process presidential candidate George Bush publicly disdained and maligned, then I guess it's working. If "working" means giving my local hosts more reason to expect me to explain my government's often shortsighted foreign policies every time I go on vacation, then I guess it's working. If "working" means turning a 14 billion dollar budget surplus into a 500 billion budget deficit, then I guess it's working. If "working" means providing a rebuttal to sound arguments against racial profiling then I guess it's working. If "working" means growing the empire to unsustainable breadth, then I guess it is working.

I do not believe President Bush is crazy. Nor do I believe any of these lightweights that the Democrats have lined up to run against him in November will defeat the incumbent, recent polling data notwithstanding. But I do believe engendering paranoia as a means to create (or sustain) a popular voting base for the political party of the very rich is a very poor substitute for sound domestic policy.

Michael S. Elioff
Livermore, CA

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Loosen up, pal
(Anonymous)
2004-02-19 02:28 am UTC (link)
Mr. Elioff,
Your thoughts here give such full meaning to the word "stiff."
You obviously think yourself very intelligent and logical, but look at your thoughts... seriously.
How about this for a definition of "working": no major terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. And that's just the beginning.

Chris Sherman, Eureka, CA

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Loosen up, pal - (Anonymous), 2004-02-19 06:49 pm UTC
Re: Dr. Elioff's Comments - (Anonymous), 2004-02-19 06:08 am UTC
Re: Dr. Elioff's Comments - (Anonymous), 2004-02-19 08:23 am UTC
Re: Dr. Elioff's Comments - (Anonymous), 2004-02-20 03:55 pm UTC
Re: Dr. Elioff's Comments - (Anonymous), 2004-02-20 05:34 pm UTC
Re: Dr. Elioff's Comments - (Anonymous), 2004-02-20 12:00 am UTC
Re: Dr. Elioff's Comments - (Anonymous), 2004-02-20 04:27 pm UTC
Re: - [info]darwinx0r, 2004-02-19 09:59 pm UTC
Re: Oil and paranoia - (Anonymous), 2004-02-20 05:06 pm UTC
Mr. Eliof
(Anonymous)
2004-02-18 09:10 pm UTC (link)
Fortunately, Mr. Eliof, you don't know what you are talking about. I think you are batshit crazy.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Mr. Eliof
(Anonymous)
2004-02-18 09:41 pm UTC (link)
Actually that's Dr. Elioff, and I'm tempted to express bitter resentment for your unsupported hit-and-run attack on my sense. But I won't because I don't want to antagonize you. I would like for you to explain your exact point of disagreement. Maybe I am batshit crazy, but with the possible exception of getting the precise budget numbers wrong, nothing I said was inaccurate.

Reading back over the responses here it seems that there's some confusion regarding terrorist attacks of 9/11/01. There is scant evidence that Saddam had anything to do with that. Sure, he terrorized Iraqis, and Kuwaitis, and Iranians, but not New Yorkers. On the other hand, 15 of the 19 people implicated in the attacks were Saudi Arabians. And our president continues to placate the sons of King Abdul Aziz, just as our government has done since 1938.

Maybe the doctrine of preemption is working. Hell, maybe it's even a good idea. We won't really know whether it is for a very long time really, but the immediate reality is that we no longer have the budget to pursue pressing domestic concerns because we chose, unconservatively, to spend a substantial fraction of our aggregate GDP on the Bush doctrine of preemption. But what are we pre-empting really? In your heart, can you honestly say you thought Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat to your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness? And now that we know he never possessed nuclear capabilities, can you say you still do?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: This "man with no ability to harm us" meme - (Anonymous), 2004-02-19 12:21 am UTC
Re: Mr. Eliof - (Anonymous), 2004-02-19 06:30 am UTC
Re: Mr. Eliof - (Anonymous), 2004-02-19 08:53 am UTC
Re: Mr. Eliof - (Anonymous), 2004-02-19 08:10 pm UTC
Re: Mr. Eliof - (Anonymous), 2004-02-19 09:35 pm UTC
Re: Mr. Eliof - (Anonymous), 2004-02-20 04:49 pm UTC

(Anonymous)
2004-02-18 09:10 pm UTC (link)
Yep. You win the war on terrorism by terrorizing the terrorists, their friends and the nations that support them. You win the war on terrorism by taking the war to their nations, their villages, their spider-holes, their beds. You win the war on terrorism by fucking them up before they can fuck you up.

Unless, of course, you want that bomb to go off in Times Square. In which case you vote Democrat in '04.

(Reply to this)

against all logic and common sense?
(Anonymous)
2004-02-18 09:15 pm UTC (link)
It would have been illogical for Bush to use "common" sense. That's not the language of the enemy. He fought "batshit crazy" with "batshit crazy", and they understood without need of translation.

(Reply to this)

Reagan
(Anonymous)
2004-02-18 10:35 pm UTC (link)
Anonymous because I'm to drunk to mess with anything else. Reagan said the bombing thing as a joke on a sound check for a radio address. It's a small thing, but even the most astute posting loses some credibility when the facts are wrong. I'll return to my Scotch now. Thanks!

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Reagan
(Anonymous)
2004-02-19 08:18 pm UTC (link)
I think most people in the U.S. who know about it at all know that. It did turn out to be a useful thing... the concept isn't quite "serendipity," but similar.

Regards,
Ric
warlocke@mesh.net

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Your ridiculous analysis
(Anonymous)
2004-02-18 10:40 pm UTC (link)
I am/was vehemently against the war in Iraq a year ago and have not seen much to change my view in the last 11 months. Let's set aside the whole WMD argument for a moment and give Bush the benefit of the doubt there -- he and his administration simply presided over the biggest intelligence/military planning blunder in American history by completely and utterly misreading Hussein's military capabilities and intentions, but we'll go along with the claim that it was not done maliciously. Hugely incompetent, maybe even willfully ignorant -- we'll give them that. They just blew it on Iraqi WMDs, but hey, everybody has a bad day, huh? That's why they put erasers on pencils, as my old man would say.

Let's just focus on these simple facts: Every day there are more U.S. casualties in Iraq, both deaths and injuries, from hostile action and accidents. Total to date: at least 540 dead, more than 3,000 injured. Those numbers, those hopelessly dry, sterile, inadequate numbers, represent the deaths and maimings of some of the finest people my country is capable of producing. There is no replacing them, ever. And that doesn't even include the thousands and thousands of Iraqis that have been hurt and killed.

Cost of the Iraqi invasion/occupation: at least $150 billion. How much more will it cost? There is no reason to believe that the administration will request less than the last emergency supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan, which was what, $83 billion? The pace of military operations in Iraq continues at a high rate, the tempo may actually pick up in Afghanistan in the spring, security problems are driving up reconstruction costs precipitously in both countries. What the heck, let's say $83 billion for another year for both countries. That brings us to at least $230 billion, and the total is sure to exceed that estimate.

And what is the bottom line so far for our efforts, our precious dead and wounded? We ain't making no June 30 deadline for even limited elections, despite what the White House says. In fact, when a real transition in power will take place, and whom the U.S. will actually "transition" that power to, is up in the air. When will the U.S. no longer be required to station 100,000-plus troops in Iraq to guarantee some kind of stability to the country and prevent civil war? Your guess is as good as Bush's. 2004? Not a chance -- we're just starting large-scale rotations of fresh troops into Iraq now, so this year is out. 2005? 2006? Who knows.

So how is the Bush Doctrine keeping Americans safer since 9/11? The real answer is that it isn't. Americans are dying every day thanks to Bush's policies. Iraq, in fact, has actually become another 9/11. And the saddest thing is is that we have no one to blame but ourselves. Our own hubris, our own ego. To think that we can bomb others into peace or understanding is the same type of thinking that terrorists use to justify their insane efforts. And just ask the Palestinians how intimidated the Israelis are by suicide attacks.

The cycle of death and violence continues. Bush is not really at fault. He is just a man, a deeply flawed man placed in a position far beyond his understanding or abilities. He is in many ways the reflection of this national machismo, this blind rage to lash out, that has swept the country since 9/11. I do not pretend to know the right path for the U.S. But I do believe in the innate goodness of my fellow Americans; I know that this talk of an American empire is just silly. My neighbors and I have no wish to take over the world. We'd just like our kids to have it a little better, a little easier, than we did. But I fear now that only a miracle will save us from disaster now in Iraq. And I don't see how a free, peaceful and prosperous Iraq comes out of the situation we have now, despite the unparalleled bravery of the valorous young men and women we have sent there.

So to me, the Bush Doctrine consists of asking the irreplaceable to do the impossible on behalf of the ignorant and ignoble. And when this administration is gone, which will be soon God willing, I ask that we just let it quietly disappear, to be replaced with some closer to reality and sanity. Thanks

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Your ridiculous analysis
(Anonymous)
2004-02-18 11:17 pm UTC (link)
So, let me ask you this: what is your alternate plan to win this war where the western civilization is being attacked by islamo-fascists ?
Or maybe, I should ask "Do you want to win this war ?".
Or even, "Do you think we are in war ?"

Iraq is just one battle, in which we took out a dictatorship and trying to replace it with a democracy. Democracies cerate stability and destroy the incubators of islamo-fascism. It will go on until all incubators are destroyed. This is the plan I know of and agree with. And it looks like working to me and to our host.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Your ridiculous analysis - (Anonymous), 2004-02-19 02:46 am UTC
Re: Your ridiculous analysis - (Anonymous), 2004-02-19 07:42 am UTC
No, YOUR ridiculous analysis! - (Anonymous), 2004-02-19 09:16 am UTC
Re: No, YOUR ridiculous analysis! - (Anonymous), 2004-02-19 12:06 pm UTC
Re: Your ridiculous analysis - (Anonymous), 2004-02-19 09:56 am UTC
Re: Your ridiculous analysis - (Anonymous), 2004-02-19 11:51 am UTC
Re: Your ridiculous analysis - (Anonymous), 2004-02-19 12:32 pm UTC
Re: Your ridiculous analysis - (Anonymous), 2004-02-19 04:46 pm UTC
Mr. Dr. Eliof
(Anonymous)
2004-02-18 10:52 pm UTC (link)
Just a small point. The economy we enjoyed in the 90s was an illusion. It was simply not real. Greenspan warned us all time and again about our "irrational exhuberance" but we were too wrapped up in the giddy thrill of easy money. And that illusion finally evaporated. Along with a lot of my money. I know it is tempting to keep harping back to those times but it is really important in honest discussion to keep the facts straight.

And to your question "what are we preempting?", well I'd like to preempt the acquisition of a chemical, biological or nuclear weapon by some insane, islamic terrorist organization. That's good enough for me at the moment.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Mr. Dr. Eliof
(Anonymous)
2004-02-19 07:29 pm UTC (link)
You are right about the economic bubble of the late 1990s. We went from a society wherein trading stocks was done by professional middlemen to a society which had everyone and their grandmothers speculating via the internet. We had dot-com companies created by twenty-something geeks selling at 400 percent of their evaluated market worth. Price theory predicts that this state of disequilibrium would adjust itself, and it did. Greenspan reminded us of this regularly. You will not hear me sing the praises of President Clinton, as I have none for him. He was just lucky, I guess. I only mention the surplus-to-deficit decline as an example of President Bush's mismanagement.

And I thank you for answering the question. I do believe people can draw different conclusions from the same data set without insulting one another. But remember, only one nation in the history of nuclear power has demonstrated the will to it against the innocent civilians of another nation. And it was not an insane islamic nation. I just don't know if we're safer as a result of this action, but I do know we are more broke than before.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Bush Doctrine
(Anonymous)
2004-02-18 10:54 pm UTC (link)
"In 2001, New York was burning and we were afraid. Today, there are American flags flying in Baghdad and our enemies are afraid."

The best 2 sentence progress report on the Bush Doctrine I've heard so far. The last couple of paragraphs about what's going to happen if Kerry wins the election are right on.

(Reply to this)

Disagree heavily
(Anonymous)
2004-02-18 10:56 pm UTC (link)
Interesting analysis, but deeply flawed. What you're describing is Nixon's 'mad dog' policy: look like we're crazy, and scare people into not screwing with us. This policy works when your enemies are the one's you can threaten, but if you can only threaten a third party, it's worse than useless. The follwing are my reasons why you're dead wrong on this war.

1) Al-Qaeda is not directly supported by any government in the Middle East, except (unofficially) for Saudi Arabia, who are Bush's sworn allies. Iraq was a secular nationalist Ba'athist government, and so was a natural enemy of al-Qaeda. Taking out Saddam did nothing to advance the war on terror. And even the Saudi monarchy, it must be remembered, is on bin Laden's hit list: his financial support comes from disaffected extremists in the religious community, who nearly revolted after the Gulf War, leading the monarchy to hand them expansive powers and autonomy and control of the country's educational system. The Saudi State is so deeply divided that there are real possibilities of the place crumbling. The governments are not tacitly supporting al-Qaeda; it is powerful and politically autonomous individuals in these countries that do so. After all, WHY would they lend support to an organization that wants a reconstrusted Khalifate (which would pretty much kill these governments' powers), encourages the murder of Shi'ites, and has listed the people running these countries as western stooges marked for death?

2) The argument only makes sense if you see all Arabs as basically the same, undifferentiated by religion, ethnicity, history, or politics. It assumes that the only possible Arab responses can be hatred or fear, and that the Arab mind is a single rational entity. This is ridiculous, and self-defeating: it prevents you from seeing the possibilities for alliances in the Arab world (such as with the socialists, or the democrats, or with the secularists, or the liberal muslims, etc). More importantly, it blinds you to the possiblity that there might be parts of the Arab world (like al-Qaeda) that are positively SEEKING a massive confrontation with the US, precisely because it will force the undiecided into their arms and discredit their opponents (the secularists, liberals, democrats, et al). By treating them as a monolith, Bush's policies have helped create that very situation.

3) By tying our forces down in Iraq, we have lost our ability to project force in other areas. We have no ability to threaten, since we have no ability to invade. N Korea has not exactly been cowed, precisely because it doesn't have to fear US action. Iran bowed to the EU and the UN, NOT the US. And Libya has been desperate to get back into our good graces for a decade: all Bush did was say 'yes'. We are weaker militarily than we have been in a century, because our potential force has all been spent.

4) And finally, how does creating tens of thousands of widows, orphans, and bereaved parents reduce the number of people willing to KILL THEMSELVES to kill us? Isn't the point of suicide bombing that it CAN'T be deterred, since death is the end-point no matter what?

In sum, you can kid yourself all you want that the US getting a huge black eye and being shown to be incapable of rooting out a badly equipped insurgency after prosecuting an illegal war (in breach of the UN charter, no less) to topple a man with no ability to harm us, while having demonstratably LIED about that man's threat capacity (thus destroying our credibility, and incidentally, our ability to supplement our forces with those of our some-time allies) makes us safer. Sorry to be so blunt, but WHAT WERE YOU THINKING???

Patrick Armshaw
patrickarmshaw@yahoo.com

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Disagree heavily
(Anonymous)
2004-02-19 12:13 am UTC (link)
I was thinking that you and I live in different realities

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Disagree heavily - (Anonymous), 2004-02-19 12:26 am UTC
Re: Disagree heavily - (Anonymous), 2004-02-19 03:06 am UTC
Re: Disagree heavily - (Anonymous), 2004-02-19 12:51 am UTC
Re: Disagree heavily - (Anonymous), 2004-02-19 03:45 am UTC
Re: Disagree heavily - (Anonymous), 2004-02-19 12:28 pm UTC
Re: Disagree heavily - (Anonymous), 2004-02-19 01:35 pm UTC
Libya was cowed
(Anonymous)
2004-02-18 11:12 pm UTC (link)
Libya was cowed into giving up its nuclear program. The documents that Libya gave the US led directly to the Pakistani scientist selling nuclear technology.

Hurrah. This was a huge win.

As for the old, old cliche about "making more enemies", tell that to Germany and Japan. Crushing your enemies and then giving them a helping hand towards being civilized and prosperous has worked wonders in what were once two of the most militaristic regimes in the 20th century.

That was 60 years ago. And it is still a good lesson. WWII was damn expensive in lives and money. But it was necessary and worth it.

Bush crushed Iraq, and is trying to make them prosperous and civilized. Do the same to Libya, Syria, Saudia Arabia and the world will be hugely safer.

Will the world be safe forever? No. New enemies will arise. And if we are lucky someone courageous will be in charge. And if we are unlucky, or stupid, someone weak will encourage our enemies to attack us again.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Libya was cowed
(Anonymous)
2004-02-19 07:41 am UTC (link)
Regarding WWII being necessary - While I certainly agree that confronting Japan and Germany was necessary the degree of carnage suffered in WWII was completely unnecessary.

Had any of the democracies of the time or the League of Nations been willing to step up to the plate Hitler and Japan could each have been stopped in the 1930's with minimal cost of life to either side.

The sad truth is that the appeasers held sway at that time and were able to think that if we just had more negotiations we could resolve all our differences like gentlemen. At that time they were just starry-eyed idealists. Today's appeasement crowd has the WWII example to draw on. They are either too stupid to understand the obvious parallels or to craven to care.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

to topple a man with no ability to harm us
(Anonymous)
2004-02-18 11:47 pm UTC (link)
"to topple a man with no ability to harm us"

Except for all the attempts to shoot down the pilots enforcing the no-fly zone.

Except for the US college students and tourists killed in Israel by suicide bombers he subsidized.

Exceptt for the assassination attempt on George Bush Sr. The epitome of stupidity was Bill Clinton letting that go ... attempting to assassinate a sitting US President or retired one by a foreign power should have been an instant death warrant, because if it isn't it does nothing but encourage our enemies .. such as Osama Bin Laden.

Except if he managed to get one nuke he could rule the Middle East. And the US has bases and ships in the Middle East.

(Reply to this)

Bush Doctrine
(Anonymous)
2004-02-19 01:27 am UTC (link)
I didn't vote for Bush. Was *very* upset he won. Believed all the press about his low IQ. Cringed whenever I saw him on TV.

I hated him and couldn't wait for his 4 year term to end.

Sept. 11 - I wonder what will happen next? Don't really want to go to war, it might make things worse. But, we have to do something .. only what?

Now - For all the reasons stated, and more, I am *very glad* GW Bush is my president. If we had a president that did NOT make them fear us, we'd be the ones afraid. I'm glad we have a cowboy as our president that makes ALL terror enabling countries wonder what will happen if they EVER DO THAT TO US AGAIN.

I really do not care what the UN, EU, Hollywood, etc. think. Unless they are willing to put their butts on the line and fight the terrorists, they can dislike ALL they want. They (UN, EU...) remind me of the stereotypical librarian or school teacher that enjoys wagging their fingers and shaking their heads because we've broken the rules.

TOO BAD they don't like it. They can go hide in a cave somewhere while REAL men and women kick some ass and make life very difficult for the nutz that want to blow us up.

PS:
I am a Liberal who will vote for GW Bush this time.

(Reply to this)

Bush Doctrine
(Anonymous)
2004-02-19 01:40 am UTC (link)
Apropos the Bush Doctrine: I'm old enough to remember the Reagan years, when highly educated scribes who lacked common sense failed to grasp the common-sensical policies of Ronald Magnus. Why is it that education and common sense seem to be mutually exclusive? Why is it that what is so painfully obvious is so elusive for the soi-disant intelligentsia?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Bush Doctrine
(Anonymous)
2004-02-19 05:06 am UTC (link)
I think part of the problem is an over-analyzation of the situation. One thing that we're used to are politicians who act like politicians - they say one thing, do another, and hope for a result that won't reflect badly on their legacy. The intelligentsia didn't help matters much by looking at situations and reading a lot more into them than may have been there, causing paralysis when it came to decision-making. Remember prior to Iraq how THEY were the ones screaming about how we shouldn't do anything, because of the chem weapons and the making of millions of suicide bombers - and they were wrong.

In the case of the ME, I think they were afraid we'd see a replay of the early '70s with the oil embargos, and so would go out of the way to avoid making folks in the ME unhappy.

Bush doesn't play that game. He says what he thinks, does what he says he's going to. That's been evident to me from day one - and it's a real nice change, IMO. And that's so off from what traditional politicians expect that they've got a hard time handling it. They're SURE he's spinning things somehow, because that's what they'd do in the same situation.

And that's what's got the folks over in the ME so confused. For the last 30 years, our policy's been to do one thing and say another. Now, what we say is what we do - and they're realizing they have to adapt and change or go the way of the Taliban and Iraq. The status quo isn't something we're going to accept any more.

Sometimes the simple solution is the right one. Sometimes complex solutions with lots of diplomacy and treaties that neither side really pays attention to end up aggravating the problems.

J. Lawson
Milblog.Org (http://www.milblog.org)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Anonymous)
2004-02-19 02:39 am UTC (link)
Those that think that Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 are ignoring what Bin Laden himself said in his tapes. He saw the US cut and run in Somalia, do nothing significant after the first attack on the WTC, our embassies, Kobar Towers, and the USS Cole. But a big chunk of his belief that he could attack us with impunity was that he saw Hussein flip us off and play us for fools for eight years with impunity. When someone powerful enough to act passively lets others insult and abuse them, it is logical for their enemies to conclude that they are fools, or cowards. Bush is far from crazy--he is, in fact, returning to classical diplomacy, and it only bears his personality in that he has the balls to act. Whether Hussein gave anyone money or not is irrelevant. We lost face, and now we've lost 3000 lives. If a Democrat gets elected, we will return to the same lawyerlike, hair-splitting, cowardly policies, and the soldiers that have died will have died in vain--as will the next victims of our reinvigorated enemies. If one wants to stop nuclear proliferation, the best way is to convince the regimes pursuing such weapons that pursuing them will bring on the very attack that they are trying to deter. Once the regimes stop funding terrorism (and it is regimes, for the only way to be wealthy under such a government is to have ties to it) all the suicide bombers won't be able to arm themselves. Where do you think a suicide-minded farmer gets C4, and the training to use it? Maybe we can remake the Middle East, maybe we can't; but we can do more to stop their attacks than stick our heads in the sand, pass more resolutions, and tie yellow ribbons around trees.

(Reply to this)

Bush Doctrine
(Anonymous)
2004-02-19 04:00 am UTC (link)
Preach it, Michael!

(Reply to this)


Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…