To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

clark · 2004-10-18 17:21:12

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html

From an author of the American Conservative, you don't get more Republican than this.

By Scott McConnell

There is little in John Kerry’s persona or platform that appeals to conservatives. The flip-flopper charge—the centerpiece of the Republican campaign against Kerry—seems overdone, as Kerry’s contrasting votes are the sort of baggage any senator of long service is likely to pick up. (Bob Dole could tell you all about it.) But Kerry is plainly a conventional liberal and no candidate for a future edition of Profiles in Courage. In my view, he will always deserve censure for his vote in favor of the Iraq War in 2002.
But this election is not about John Kerry. If he were to win, his dearth of charisma would likely ensure him a single term. He would face challenges from within his own party and a thwarting of his most expensive initiatives by a Republican Congress. Much of his presidency would be absorbed by trying to clean up the mess left to him in Iraq. He would be constrained by the swollen deficits and a ripe target for the next Republican nominee.
It is, instead, an election about the presidency of George W. Bush. To the surprise of virtually everyone, Bush has turned into an important president, and in many ways the most radical America has had since the 19th century. Because he is the leader of America’s conservative party, he has become the Left’s perfect foil—its dream candidate. The libertarian writer Lew Rockwell has mischievously noted parallels between Bush and Russia’s last tsar, Nicholas II: both gained office as a result of family connections, both initiated an unnecessary war that shattered their countries’ budgets. Lenin needed the calamitous reign of Nicholas II to create an opening for the Bolsheviks.
Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations. The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit to be passed on to the nation’s children, the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing cliché about predatory imperialism and turn it into administration policy. Add to this his nation-breaking immigration proposal—Bush has laid out a mad scheme to import immigrants to fill any job where the wage is so low that an American can’t be found to do it—and you have a presidency that combines imperialist Right and open-borders Left in a uniquely noxious cocktail.
During the campaign, few have paid attention to how much the Bush presidency has degraded the image of the United States in the world. Of course there has always been “anti-Americanism.” After the Second World War many European intellectuals argued for a “Third Way” between American-style capitalism and Soviet communism, and a generation later Europe’s radicals embraced every ragged “anti-imperialist” cause that came along. In South America, defiance of “the Yanqui” always draws a crowd. But Bush has somehow managed to take all these sentiments and turbo-charge them. In Europe and indeed all over the world, he has made the United States despised by people who used to be its friends, by businessmen and the middle classes, by moderate and sensible liberals. Never before have democratic foreign governments needed to demonstrate disdain for Washington to their own electorates in order to survive in office. The poll numbers are shocking. In countries like Norway, Germany, France, and Spain, Bush is liked by about seven percent of the populace. In Egypt, recipient of huge piles of American aid in the past two decades, some 98 percent have an unfavorable view of the United States. It’s the same throughout the Middle East.
Bush has accomplished this by giving the U.S. a novel foreign-policy doctrine under which it arrogates to itself the right to invade any country it wants if it feels threatened. It is an American version of the Brezhnev Doctrine, but the latter was at least confined to Eastern Europe. If the analogy seems extreme, what is an appropriate comparison when a country manufactures falsehoods about a foreign government, disseminates them widely, and invades the country on the basis of those falsehoods? It is not an action that any American president has ever taken before. It is not something that “good” countries do. It is the main reason that people all over the world who used to consider the United States a reliable and necessary bulwark of world stability now see us as a menace to their own peace and security.
These sentiments mean that as long as Bush is president, we have no real allies in the world, no friends to help us dig out from the Iraq quagmire. More tragically, they mean that if terrorists succeed in striking at the United States in another 9/11-type attack, many in the world will not only think of the American victims but also of the thousands and thousands of Iraqi civilians killed and maimed by American armed forces. The hatred Bush has generated has helped immeasurably those trying to recruit anti-American terrorists—indeed his policies are the gift to terrorism that keeps on giving, as the sons and brothers of slain Iraqis think how they may eventually take their own revenge. Only the seriously deluded could fail to see that a policy so central to America’s survival as a free country as getting hold of loose nuclear materials and controlling nuclear proliferation requires the willingness of foreign countries to provide full, 100 percent co-operation. Making yourself into the world’s most hated country is not an obvious way to secure that help.
I’ve heard people who have known George W. Bush for decades and served prominently in his father’s administration say that he could not possibly have conceived of the doctrine of pre-emptive war by himself, that he was essentially taken for a ride by people with a pre-existing agenda to overturn Saddam Hussein. Bush’s public performances plainly show him to be a man who has never read or thought much about foreign policy. So the inevitable questions are: who makes the key foreign-policy decisions in the Bush presidency, who controls the information flow to the president, how are various options are presented?
The record, from published administration memoirs and in-depth reporting, is one of an administration with a very small group of six or eight real decision-makers, who were set on war from the beginning and who took great pains to shut out arguments from professionals in the CIA and State Department and the U.S. armed forces that contradicted their rosy scenarios about easy victory. Much has been written about the neoconservative hand guiding the Bush presidency—and it is peculiar that one who was fired from the National Security Council in the Reagan administration for suspicion of passing classified material to the Israeli embassy and another who has written position papers for an Israeli Likud Party leader have become key players in the making of American foreign policy.
But neoconservatism now encompasses much more than Israel-obsessed intellectuals and policy insiders. The Bush foreign policy also surfs on deep currents within the Christian Right, some of which see unqualified support of Israel as part of a godly plan to bring about Armageddon and the future kingdom of Christ. These two strands of Jewish and Christian extremism build on one another in the Bush presidency—and President Bush has given not the slightest indication he would restrain either in a second term. With Colin Powell’s departure from the State Department looming, Bush is more than ever the “neoconian candidate.” The only way Americans will have a presidency in which neoconservatives and the Christian Armageddon set are not holding the reins of power is if Kerry is elected.
If Kerry wins, this magazine will be in opposition from Inauguration Day forward. But the most important battles will take place within the Republican Party and the conservative movement. A Bush defeat will ignite a huge soul-searching within the rank-and-file of Republicandom: a quest to find out how and where the Bush presidency went wrong. And it is then that more traditional conservatives will have an audience to argue for a conservatism informed by the lessons of history, based in prudence and a sense of continuity with the American past—and to make that case without a powerful White House pulling in the opposite direction.
George W. Bush has come to embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful conservatism. His international policies have been based on the hopelessly naïve belief that foreign peoples are eager to be liberated by American armies—a notion more grounded in Leon Trotsky’s concept of global revolution than any sort of conservative statecraft. His immigration policies—temporarily put on hold while he runs for re-election—are just as extreme. A re-elected President Bush would be committed to bringing in millions of low-wage immigrants to do jobs Americans “won’t do.” This election is all about George W. Bush, and those issues are enough to render him unworthy of any conservative support.

BWhite · 2004-10-18 20:45:20

I like this quote, from elsewhere:

We didn't go in with a plan. We went in with a theory," said a veteran State Department officer who was directly involved in Iraq policy.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-19 05:52:44

We didn't go in with a plan. We went in with a theory," said a veteran State Department officer who was directly involved in Iraq policy.

We went in with a war plan, which worked remarkably well. We had a set of theories for the aftermath, which is all we ever have when attempting to rebuild a fallen nation. There is no nation-building "plan", merely a set of goals, theories and assumptions for each individual case, some right and some not. In the case of Iraq there was an unusually high degree of false assumptions, but there is also a high degree of false spin intended to make the situation appear much worse than it actually is.

Now, since Clark included me in the subject line, I suppose I should state this for any passersby and lurkers. I'm not a big Bushie, I don't like many of his policies, he's made some monumentally stupid mistakes and he would not be my first choice to lead us in this war. Some of my objections are rooted in traditional conservatism of the sort the article here seems to support. Some of my objections to his domestic policies go further into a strong libertarian stance, while somewhat paradoxically other objections stem from those fascist roots that have been nourished of late.

Right/Left, black/white, with us/against us; bah! Childish oversimplification.

Further, I'm really starting to wonder about the circumstances behind the Bush Presidency, it's as though the Republicans firmly believed they wouldn't win, facing an incumbent party in what was believed to be a good economy, hopeless. George W. wanted his shot, the Party honchos knew they'd lose regardless, "sure, let him run. We'll come back with a real candidate in 2004." Only he won. In an odd parallel to the 2004 Democrat primaries, they picked a candidate for reasons other than wanting him to be President and now they're stuck with him.

Without question the Bush Doctrine is a marked departure from traditional American policies and fundamentally anti-conservative. It would be much more American to attack only when attacked, and only against those directly responsible. It would be easier, less politically risky, and ideologically sound.

But I don't believe we can win that way. If we allow the enemy to dictate the time and place of battle, we cede them a tremendous advantage. We must keep them off-balance, we require a base of operations within the region, and we need an example of a democratic secular arab state. Afghanistan was a direct response and therefore expected and it was too peripheral for the other needs. Iraq was an obvious pick for the next move. No one will miss Saddam, we had a slew of UN resolutions, and Iraq had violated a ceasefire agreement with us, legal justification was ample and Saddam was hardly defensible. It was an easier sell than Iran or Syria and Saudi Arabia would have presented unnecessary complications. Iraq represents part of an overall strategy. Perhaps not a necessary part, and possibly even one that should have been avoided entirely, but that is no longer the issue.

We're there now, all the wouldas and shouldas instantly become irrelevant. What now?

Bush will in all likelihood continue with whatever his Administration's present strategy is. Afghanistan is making remarkable progress, though it has a long way to go. Iraq is facing more robust resistance, but still moving forward despite mistakes. The real question in a second Bush term is in what direction will the current course be channeled? Will the more conservative elements of the Party prevail and push for accelarated "Iraqification" to facilitate American withdrawal, except for a few permanent bases; or will a more neoconservative approach win out, with greater vigor and less concerned with cries of imperialism, cultural or otherwise. Either has it's advantages and disadvantages, either can be managed.

Under a Kerry Administration we can expect either an oddly conservative "Iraqification" approach to facilitate total US withdrawal, whether they're ready or not, or perhaps an open "withdraw by" policy, allowing the terrorists to wait it out.The first possibility depending on how prepared the Iraqi government and security forces are could either be nearly ideal from a conservative perspective, or a reinforcement of the "Mogadisu effect" the enemy is counting on. The latter option is simply unacceptable.

From my perspective Bush is slightly better on the war, yet from my perspective there is more at stake in this election. Even assuming the best case scenario of Kerry's likely policies on the war, he has made clear that he will raise taxes, thus stifling the recovering economy. He advocates a healthcare program that in part attempts to feed off a Canadian drug policy that in turn leeches from the United States, it's unworkable as the Canadian government sees, prompting them to consider freezing sales back to Americans. By his Senate record, John Kerry is the most anti-Second Amendment Presidential nominee in a general election ever. His record and his backers indicate what sort of judges he would appoint as well, and they are not the sort I'd prefer. Every American has to make their own choice, but despite all of Bush's shortcomings, John Kerry will take us further in a direction I don't want to go.

Not that I'll consider it a total loss if he wins, he will be a one-termer almost certainly for many of the reasons mentioned in the article, he will virtually preclude a Hillary Clinton run for the Presidency, and perhaps the new Republican President elected in 2008 will be the sort they'd have nominated in 2000 if they thought they had a real shot.

That, and if Bush doesn't get killed in office it means that Reagan broke Tecumseh's Curse, further cementing his greatness to the ire of liberals everywhere.

clark · 2004-10-19 07:09:05

“Us versus them,” A very definite over-simplification, introduced by our current leadership. On the one hand we have a current administration where we don’t particularly like the direction he is taking us, and on the other we have a choice of another administration where we might not like the direction he may take us.

Case in point if you don’t believe that it is not so certain- would any here truly believe that Bush would take us to where we are now prior to the 2000 election? At this point, it truly is a decision to determine if we wish to continue down the same path for four more years, led by the same man who has made all the decisions that have gotten us here. Or, do we decide to have another man make the choices.

Mistakes have been made, we all can point to them, yet here we sit, while the man making such decisions refuses, or is incapable of distinguishing any mistakes on his own. There is a disconnect between how we all appreciate the situation, and how that same situation is being evaluated by the decision makers. I ask you, can a mistake be rectified, or a poor choice improved, unless that mistake can be acknowledged and identified? No attempt will be made to improve our plans, or make the best possible decision unless it is admitted that a change of course is required. We will not get that from the current administration.

Now, we fear that our efforts will have gone for naught with Kerry. That we will cede Iraq to terrorists. This is blatantly untrue. Both canadites agree on the fundamental principle that we must stay the course in Iraq, that we must make Iraq stable- for our own sake, and for the Iraqi’s themselves.

The notion that we can somehow impose ourselves in permanent bases in the deserts is now an illusion. At one point, I believed that such a thing was possible, but not now. Not ever. The simple fact of the matter is we have become boxed in by our own words, by our new rationale for invading Iraq. Democracy in a word. When elections come to Iraq, whose populace hates us, they will vote us out. We will be told to leave. I ask you again, who has led us to the point where we are despised by most of the democracies of the world? Who has led us to the point where the goodwill of the world, and of the majority of the American populace, has been squandered to create the conditions by which we are made more unsafe, and the job of protecting our way of life made that much more difficult?

Both canadites agree to the same principle- remove troops from Iraq as soon as possible. Bush wants to train Iraqi’s. Kerry wants to train Iraqi’s faster. There is no qualitative difference between the two men when it comes to the policy of Iraq. The only difference is that Kerry represents a chance by which we may approach the world community and begin the hard task of turning bitter enemies into our allies. There is no discussion with the major powers of the world anymore- it’s “Us or Them,” a black and white oversimplified Texan’s shtick in a two-bit bid for populism.

We cannot rule the world as we are now constructed, and until such time as we are constructed for world domination, it behooves us to not bite off more than we can chew. It behooves us to work with our allies, turn others to friends so that they actively work with us to achieve our desired aims. The fundamental precept of peace is compromise. It is not black-white duality that precludes discussion.

As it stands now, we have ceded the enemy the advantage. We have given their voice a larger platform, a rally cry, and more converts than we can number or kill. By making the decision to go alone, when we didn’t need to, we have made it that much more difficult to continue the fight elsewhere. After we are done in Iraq killing the terrorists, we still have to stay there and pick up the pieces. They don’t. Free of borders, they move to another staging area, and another, and another, until we are utterly exhausted. To continue as we are, alone, with preemptive strikes based on false intelligence or theories, we will be forced to draft. We will be forced to increase the size of the military. We will be forced to diminish civil rights. We will be forced to continue damaging our economy through ruinous deficit spending and neglecting many other worthwhile endeavors that have made this nation great. That is where this road leads if the same decisions are made by the same man for the next four years.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-19 08:13:35

Case in point if you don’t believe that it is not so certain- would any here truly believe that Bush would take us to where we are now prior to the 2000 election?

I have this vague recollection of some events that significantly altered the equation. Hmm, maybe it was just a dream but I could have sworn there used to be these two bigass, ugly towers in New York, right next to each other...

The path we followed before the 2000 election has a few detours, and some of it is just closed. It's not relevant to our present situation.

Mistakes have been made, we all can point to them, yet here we sit, while the man making such decisions refuses, or is incapable of distinguishing any mistakes on his own.

Enter the game of politics. All this clamoring for Bush to "acknowledge mistakes" is about one thing, a soundbite to be played ad nauseum in Democrat ads. Even if haunted by the spirits of the dead he can't start listing mistakes. Not yet.

I ask you, can a mistake be rectified, or a poor choice improved, unless that mistake can be acknowledged and identified? No attempt will be made to improve our plans, or make the best possible decision unless it is admitted that a change of course is required. We will not get that from the current administration.

First, a change of course is not required, merely a series of course corrections. Whether these are forthcoming we can't know for certain. We like to think that our government is completely forthcoming about all its business with us, but I'm afraid it just isn't so. The mistakes are acknowledged in closed meetings, the corrections decided on behind closed doors, not on a CNN panel for all to see.

The notion that we can somehow impose ourselves in permanent bases in the deserts is now an illusion. At one point, I believed that such a thing was possible, but not now. Not ever.

First, while we're constantly told by the all-knowing telescreen how much the Iraqi people despise us, what little I hear from over there isn't so full of doom and gloom. Some hate us, some are grateful for all that we've done, most just want to get on with their lives.

We'll be nice to them if they be nice to us. Ah, the wisdom of Gollum.

They will elect a government not of rabid terrorist lackeys, but largely of responsible citizens. Many of them will see good reasons for allowing if not asking us to stay. Not out on the streets, not as an occupier, but in bases nearby in order to assist them when needed. Personally I think we're moving too fast with this whole democracy deal, but it may yet work out well. At any rate we've already started down that path, we can't abruptly change it now.

We cannot rule the world as we are now constructed, and until such time as we are constructed for world domination, it behooves us to not bite off more than we can chew.

A bit of a "chicken and egg" scenario, eh? :;):

As it stands now, we have ceded the enemy the advantage. We have given their voice a larger platform, a rally cry, and more converts than we can number or kill. By making the decision to go alone, when we didn’t need to, we have made it that much more difficult to continue the fight elsewhere.

The rest of the world would rather respond. We have elected to prevent. We can sit by indefinately and respond to each attack with the full blessing of the community of nations, or we can act to put a stop to those attacks. How many American civilians have to die on American soil before we're justified? How many lives is it worth to stay cuddly with the UN?

To continue as we are, alone, with preemptive strikes based on false intelligence or theories, we will be forced to draft. We will be forced to increase the size of the military. We will be forced to diminish civil rights. We will be forced to continue damaging our economy through ruinous deficit spending and neglecting many other worthwhile endeavors that have made this nation great. That is where this road leads if the same decisions are made by the same man for the next four years.

Reading this you'd think we've never fought a war before! We fought to keep the country from splitting apart, we had an election right in the middle of it! We fought two world wars, The Second as the major industrial and military power on our side. Oh yes, the British and the Australians and many others were with us, but hey, "window dressing" to use John Kerry's term. We had more troops, we made most of the weapons. Then actually had the audacity to rebuild those countries we invaded... Vietnam only had such effects because we pulled our punches and made policy based on political concerns, letting it drag on for years of futility as opposition seethed in the rear. "Stabbed in the back" as it were, who used to say that?...

Oh, nevermind.

Kerry and Bush both say similar things about how to proceed in the war. Bush is holding back from where his people want to go for political reasons, Kerry is pushing further than his people want to go for the same reasons. The simple fact of the matter is that when all the platitudes, justifications and noble mission statements are swept away, we're facing an enemy with whom there can be no compromise and in such a case the essence of peace is not compromise, but victory. Vote as you see fit, as will I. Whatever happens, I'll adjust accordingly. If Bush wins we won't suddenly crush terrorism in January and if Kerry wins our civilization won't come crashing down in flames.

Probably. ???

But for a multitude of reasons I'm of the opinion that Kerry would be worse, given my own preferences. Recoverable, but worse, domestically and with regards to foreign policy.

But the French will like us better. They still won't help us, but we can at least put that freedom fries thing behind us.

BWhite · 2004-10-19 08:28:15

If this guy is right, there will be more "mistakes" caused by reliance on an increasingly closed echo chamber of advisers.

Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush, told me recently that ''if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3.'' The nature of that conflict, as Bartlett sees it? Essentially, the same as the one raging across much of the world: a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion.
''Just in the past few months,'' Bartlett said, ''I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do.'' Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush's governance, went on to say: ''This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them. . . .
''This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts,'' Bartlett went on to say. ''He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence.'' Bartlett paused, then said, ''But you can't run the world on faith.''

Going in circles is better than running off a cliff.

= = =

Anyone see this http://www.bushfaith.com/homepage.asp?g … 0house]DVD yet?

See how the power of faith can change a life, build a family and shape the destiny of a nation... Not since the days of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln has a president put so much stock in his Christian faith and prayer life for making decisions and leading the United States in its hour of crisis. According to BBC correspondent Justin Webb: "Nobody spends more time on his knees than George W. Bush. The Bush administration hums to the sound of prayer. Prayer meetings take place day and night. It's not uncommon to see White House functionaries hurrying down corridors carrying Bibles."
This program will examine the extraordinary faith and prayer life of President George W. Bush, and how it impacts his personal life and his decisions as the leader of the free world. See how his faith has been unshakeable in dealing with the 9/11 terrorist attack, fighting al-Qaeda, ridding Iraq of the Saddam Hussein regime, rooting out terrorists in Afghanistan, and how his religious beliefs bring personal peace and clarity in a time of terrorism and chaos across the world.

So Cobra, can we count you amongst those who believe the power of Evangelical faith will defeat al Qaeda?

Palomar · 2004-10-19 08:34:26

*But we're already there. We've been there for approximately 1-1/2 years. This reminds me of crying over spilled milk. We're in it. Probably WILL be in it for the next 4 years at least (based on latest news analyses I've heard).

There is no "us vs them" -- fine, go tell that to Al-Qaeda.

So now what?

Repeat: Go tell Al-Qaeda there is no "us vs them." It's doubtful (understatement) they'd agree.

The kid who is getting beat up for his or her lunch money isn't going to buy "there is no us vs them" with respect to the bully. Any adult trying to convince the victim that there's no difference between he and the bully would be considered an imbicile.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2004-10-19 08:43:35

There is no "us vs them" -- fine, go tell that to Al-Qaeda.

I believe the Arab world is filled with "undecideds" who do not like al Qaeda =OR= Israel =OR= US policy in Iraq.

Do we woo those people or whack those people?

The undecideds, I mean. The average Islamic Iraqi who is happy Saddam is gone but angry because we cannot stamp out the insurgency.

= = =

Why did al Qaeda attack us? Because bin Laden was not getting anywhere in establishing a pan-Arab movement to unify all Muslims.

By getting us to kill innocents with JDAMS he now has more fertile recruitment turf for his jihadists.

clark · 2004-10-19 08:51:21

They will elect a government not of rabid terrorist lackeys, but largely of responsible citizens. Many of them will see good reasons for allowing if not asking us to stay. Not out on the streets, not as an occupier, but in bases nearby in order to assist them when needed. Personally I think we're moving too fast with this whole democracy deal, but it may yet work out well. At any rate we've already started down that path, we can't abruptly change it now.

The population at large does not like us. They want us to leave. I'm not that bright, but I have some experience how a democracy works. It seems rather obvious that a good way to get elected is to run on a platform that appeals to a wide audience. The end result is Iraqi's will elect people who call for the quick, or immediate withdrawl of US forces from Iraq.

The entire reason we are going towards a democracy at light speed in Iraq is because there were no WMD's, thus underming the basis of the invasion. We are further bowing to the wishes of the theocratic element of Iraq that contains the Shiite majority. They don't want us there because our presence makes it that much more difficult to establish their ultimate rule. As it is, we are trying to placate the minority Kurds and Sunni's to stave off civil war with the Shiite's. It has developed so far that the Kurds and the Sunni's are preparing to boycott any elections held.

Without those minorities in power, there will be no one calling for the US forces to remain in Iraq. the only voice heard will be from a Shiite's majorty calling for our immediate withdrawl.

The simple fact of the matter is that we are creating more intractable enemies where no compromise can be reached with our current policies. We are shooting ourselves in the foot.

Palomar · 2004-10-19 08:54:17

There is no "us vs them" -- fine, go tell that to Al-Qaeda.
I believe the Arab world is filled with "undecideds" who do not like al Qaeda =OR= Israel =OR= US policy in Iraq.
Do we woo those people or whack those people?
The undecideds, I mean. The average Islamic Iraqi who is happy Saddam is gone but angry because we cannot stamp out the insurgency.

*We woo them, of course.

The notion that there is -- or can be -- no "us vs them" is blatantly false and ridiculous. Many times it seems unnecessary and even downright unfortunate...but it seems unavoidable as human interrelations go...if history is any indication (past behavior/indicative of future behavior).

Ideologies will always be divisive (to some degree or another)...because not every single human being on the planet can be in complete agreement with one another. Aside from complete agreement being likely impossible, if achievable it'd be Group Think. Which would lead to the ultimate stagnation and stasis.

There are no simplifications on a planet with over 6 billion people on it, thousands of languages and even more unique cultures. Etc., etc.

--Cindy

Why did al Qaeda attack us? Because bin Laden was not getting anywhere in establishing a pan-Arab movement to unify all Muslims.

*Al-Qaeda is a rabid dog...it just exists to attack, period. I doubt they need much of a pretext. As for your statement about bin Laden: Which further proves what a delusional nitwit he is. There has never yet been all-encompassing unity within any group of people (Nazi Germany might come close to being an exception...although there was very well resistance from within). And given the human propensity for stomping on others, being murderous and covetous...that might just be a blessing in disguise.

::edit:: Going back to "us vs them," it's what you DO with the differences...HOW you respond and react, etc. I've read books other people want banned; however, I don't seek to ban anything they might wish to read. Their motive is selfishness and control. I think everyone should be entitled to read whatever they want (liberty). How to reconcile that? Can't, apparently, so laws are enacted which protect from confiscation and destruction of property by others.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-19 08:55:33

''if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3.'' The nature of that conflict, as Bartlett sees it? Essentially, the same as the one raging across much of the world: a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion.

Indeed, as well as a similar development in the Democrat party which has brewing lately. In both cases it's the moderate elements versus the extremists. This is the inevitable result of our two party system, since those two parties are the only two that can realistically win everyone gravitates to whichever is closest to their beliefs, even if there are glaring conflicts on major points. European governments must from coalitions of parties to govern, our parties are coalitions. Too many disparate interests have accrued in both cases, a major shake-up is overdue.

So Cobra, can we count you amongst those who believe the power of Evangelical faith will defeat al Qaeda?

:laugh:
An evangelical crusader has his uses, provided he's used properly.

The undecideds, I mean. The average Islamic Iraqi who is happy Saddam is gone but angry because we cannot stamp out the insurgency.

Step up patrols, bring in more troops from Europe, delay elections and stamp out the insurgency. There's still time! Dammit Rummie, didn't you get my memo!

clark · 2004-10-19 08:56:31

Ooooooh, the irony of it all... :laugh:

BWhite · 2004-10-19 08:56:49

The undecideds, I mean. The average Islamic Iraqi who is happy Saddam is gone but angry because we cannot stamp out the insurgency.
Step up patrols, bring in more troops from Europe, delay elections and stamp out the insurgency. There's still time! Dammit Rummie, didn't you get my memo!

Actually, he did. But your memo was overruled by a Higher Authority.

clark · 2004-10-19 08:58:13

Step up patrols, bring in more troops from Europe, delay elections and stamp out the insurgency. There's still time! Dammit Rummie, didn't you get my memo!

He didn't read it... it was the Kerry memo. :laugh:

BWhite · 2004-10-19 08:59:48

Remember this.

BOTH Allawi and Sadr agreed to a truce in Najaf after Sistani returned from London and said "Knock it Off!"

Now tell me, who really rules Iraq?

IMHO, its Sistani, except in places like Fallajuh where no Americans go and Kurdistan which is fast becoming a de facto independent country.

BWhite · 2004-10-19 09:00:58

Step up patrols, bring in more troops from Europe, delay elections and stamp out the insurgency. There's still time! Dammit Rummie, didn't you get my memo!
He didn't read it... it was the Kerry memo. :laugh:

Gosh, you are right. More special forces and two new divisions of infantry.

Nah, Rumsfeld believes in UAVs.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-19 11:37:00

Now tell me, who really rules Iraq?
IMHO, its Sistani, except in places like Fallajuh where no Americans go and Kurdistan which is fast becoming a de facto independent country.

I'm inclined to agree. As for an independent Kurdistan, I have no real problems with that. Let Iraq break into three, if even one is inclined to remain friendly with us and "invite" us to stay around we get our frontline base of operations.

Quote
Step up patrols, bring in more troops from Europe, delay elections and stamp out the insurgency. There's still time! Dammit Rummie, didn't you get my memo!

He didn't read it... it was the Kerry memo.

He may well have called for something along these lines at one point or another. In early August he was for cutting troop numbers in Europe, Korea and Iraq, but it's been awhile

I'm not making a flip-flopper joke here either, he's not been clear on what his plan is, merely assuring us that it exists.

Quote (clark @ Oct. 19 2004, 10:58)
Quote
Step up patrols, bring in more troops from Europe, delay elections and stamp out the insurgency. There's still time! Dammit Rummie, didn't you get my memo!

He didn't read it... it was the Kerry memo.
Gosh, you are right. More special forces and two new divisions of infantry.
Nah, Rumsfeld believes in UAVs.

Two new divisions indeed. In addition to the two we're transferring out of Germany, a fraction of the full complement in Europe. Do we still need troops in Germany and Italy? Is Britain unable to defend itself? Asia we may have some need, with the jumpsuited Nork goofball sitting on some nukes and a potential China on the horizon, but surely the Russians aren't going to invade Europe.

Getting down to it, I'd prefer not to withdraw those troops, but when the likes of John Kerry, who has always been hostile toward the military throughout his time in the Senate, consistently calls for two more divisions...

I said John Kerry consistently calls for, :laugh: <insert Beavis and Butthead laugh> two more divisions, I must wonder what he's expecting, particular if he now supports reductions in Europe and Asia. I'm not implying he's secretly planning Armageddon or anything, I just don't get it. Pull troops out of areas where they aren't doing anything, pull them out of Iraq where they are, and raise two more divisions? And all this bugaboo about a draft being necessary if we get stretched much more? If he's wants all these troops to forcibly unify the Americas or something, just say so, otherwise... ???

As for expanding special forces, we're talking about elite units with extremely high requirements. Expanding elite units almost always has the effect of degrading not only your standard forces, but lowering the overall quality of the elite units as well. Double the number of SEALs you pass and you'll have a unit where 50% of your men wouldn't have made it in under the old standards.

And UAV's have their place. As do bunker-busting nukes for that matter.

clark · 2004-10-19 11:45:32

He may well have called for something along these lines at one point or another. In early August he was for cutting troop numbers in Europe, Korea and Iraq, but it's been awhile

Bush is cutting numbers in Europe and repositioning them into the US. Bush is cutting troop numbers in Korea and repositioning them in the South Pacific, or putting them in iraq itself.

Kerry is calling for an increase in the size of the military to enable us to succeed in Iraq because it requires more troops, plain and simple. Bush's team went in light, and instability an insurgency is the price.

Increasing the size will allow us the options we need in order to counteract the other threats that exsist in the world. As is, we can't do it if we have to do it all alone.

I'm not implying he's secretly planning Armageddon or anything, I just don't get it. Pull troops out of areas where they aren't doing anything, pull them out of Iraq where they are, and raise two more divisions? And all this bugaboo about a draft being necessary if we get stretched much more? If he's wants all these troops to forcibly unify the Americas or something, just say so, otherwise...

It alows us to do what needs to be done to stay the course in iraq. Our man power is insufficient and it should be evident considering how taxed the Army Reserves and National Guard are becoming. We can not keep up this tempo as currently constructed. Yeah, we had a policy for a two front war, but that's gone and it wasn't realisitc to begin with. We have 10 divisions now, and most of them are either in Iraq or are on rotation in or out of Iraq. Thise gives us zero flexibility in responding to any new crisis that arises.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-19 12:10:58

Bush is cutting numbers in Europe and repositioning them into the US. Bush is cutting troop numbers in Korea and repositioning them in the South Pacific, or putting them in iraq itself.

Which is what I'm getting at, Kerry is saying he'll do what Bush is already doing. Troops are being transferred from places where they are no longer needed (which Kerry objected to at first) to use in Iraq and allow greater flexibility. Elements within the Administration wanted to use smaller and lighter forces to reduce the footprint so as not to look so much like a conqueror. It turns out that was futile, so we're finally making long-overdue adjustments.

Kerry is calling for an increase in the size of the military to enable us to succeed in Iraq because it requires more troops, plain and simple. Bush's team went in light, and instability an insurgency is the price.

Which is where the "Roman option" comes in, when you go into a country you conquer it, democracy and all that other good stuff comes later. But we don't want to be seen as imperialists (lots of good that did us) so we try to invade in the lightest, friendliest way possible. Stomping in with bunny slippers. The problem I have with Bush on this is that he talks like he's gonna go liberate half the planet and smash terrorists wherever they are, then backs off at Fallujah and Najaf to avoid that very ass-whuppin' he keeps talking about. Kerry, on the other hand tries to take the enlightened community of nations approach while talking about needing more troops and not turning American security over to foreign powers, but with some sort of "global test" and with "our allies", though not the one's that are with us. ???

They're both sending "mixed messages" to use a Bush line, if we need to send more troops in , seize control, impose security and kill 100,000 terrorists fine, let's just acknowledge that and proceed. If Kerry will come right out and say so, lay that right out there that we're going to get full-on Roman to finish this and offer a serious plan to do so, he'll have my vote. Until then... more troops for what, exactly? Just in case someone gets uppity? Plans to win the current conflict? If we're not prepared to really do what needs to be done, all the troops in the world won't help us. Better to let the world burn.

clark · 2004-10-19 12:46:02

Elements within the Administration wanted to use smaller and lighter forces to reduce the footprint so as not to look so much like a conqueror. It turns out that was futile, so we're finally making long-overdue adjustments.

Elements eh? One man makes the decision. One man made a series of poor decisions. How many more poor choices must he make before you are satisfied that his judgement is not up to the task at hand?

Elements said we would be greeted as liberators. Bush agreed, and he was wrong.

Elements said not to worry about the looting or the failing infrastructure. Bush agreed, and was wrong.

Elements said we would have enough troops to invade thre country, topple the government, guard the borders, and secure government weapon sites. Bush agreed, and was wrong.

Elements said that we could rely on outside Iraqi's to establish a politcaly friendly and legitimate government. Bush agreed, and was wrong.

Elements said we could quickly restore a civil defense force after retiring the Iraqi Army. Bush agreed, and was wrong.

Not a single one of those elements has been sacked. Indeed, Bush continues to rely on those same elements for consul and to filter his information.

BWhite · 2004-10-19 13:08:21

Now tell me, who really rules Iraq?
IMHO, its Sistani, except in places like Fallajuh where no Americans go and Kurdistan which is fast becoming a de facto independent country.
I'm inclined to agree. As for an independent Kurdistan, I have no real problems with that. Let Iraq break into three, if even one is inclined to remain friendly with us and "invite" us to stay around we get our frontline base of operations.

Our current problems largely stem from our refusal to recognize this reality.

The neo-cons desired a more pro-Israeli Iraq than is feasible and Chalabi played that game brilliantly.

The US continues to try to "stand up" a secular government that can balance Sistani's power. Sistani (a patient man who survived Saddam after all) preaches non-violent resistance.

He consistently says to America: "Thank you, now leave."

Sistani won't oppose us openly, the Sunni/Baath and Sadr do that quite nicely. But there really is no constituency to support a domestic counterbalance to Sistani except the Sunni/Baath, the Iranian leaning Shia like Sadr and the Kurds.

Allawi is merely another flavor of Chalabi, perhaps a bit more pliant. And we simply refuse to accept that Sistani is the natural leader of Shia Iraq, perhaps because he refuses direct negotiations with us.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-19 13:10:56

Elements eh? One man makes the decision. One man made a series of poor decisions. How many more poor choices must he make before you are satisfied that his judgement is not up to the task at hand?

Which is why I've been critical of Bush in the past on the very issues you cite, yet the alternative is a man who has exercised twenty years of bad judgment on defense issues, from wanting to appease the Soviets, voting against funding intelligence services, voting against the war to liberate Kuwait, all the way to voting for the current war then backpedaling on it. If Kerry's policies had been enacted Saddam Huseein would still control Kuwait and the Soviet Union would very possibly still have missiles pointed at us. We still wouldn't have seen 9/11 coming, and we'd still be wandering around Afghanistan wondering what went wrong. Whose flawed judgment should we turn the war over to? It all depends on what you think the best way to win the war is and your estimation of the American people. I believe that we need to go on the offensive and root out the terrorists, and that the American people are smart enough to realize that it's not going to be an easy "microwave war" that gets a few weeks of ratings on the cable news networks then disappears. Bush is more in line with that, list of errors and all. If it gets too tough, hopefully the American people can be made to understand what's at stake. If you'd rather we sit and wait to be hit, rather trust Kerry's brand of bad judgment which has almost uniformly been on the wrong side America's defense interests, go ahead, it's a free country. Neither is a master strategist nor even a good politician, but they're what we've got. Bush just consolidates the damage more, makes fixing it easier.

clark · 2004-10-19 13:11:41

Here is something picked up on UPI.com

http://about.upi.com/exclusive/UPI-2004 … 2932-4374R

At the end of last year, in a wide-ranging interview with United Press International, Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla., now the president's pick to run a large chunk of the war on terror as the director of the CIA, presaged Kerry's remarks almost exactly, saying that the conflict was more like the war on crime than the cold war.
"There will always be criminals," he said, "There will always be crime. What you can do is reduce it to an acceptable level."
In the same way, he explained there would always be terrorists, "sick, evil people driven to kill," but their activities could be contained to what he called, without elaboration, "a satisfactory extent."
The fact is, there is no way to end terrorism. It is a tactic. It is a weapon, like a rifle. Could you win a war against rifles? The very idea is ridiculous.
There will, as Goss might have said, always be rifles. And there will always be the potential for small groups of dedicated and determined people to carry out attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure in a free society.
The point that Goss and Kerry are both making is that the objective of the so-called war on terror is containment -- and cannot be anything else.
Bush himself -- in an uncharacteristically reflective moment -- admitted as much to NBC at the end of August.
"I don't think you can win it," he said, referring to the war on terror.
"But I think you can create conditions," he continued, "so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."
The president's campaign seems to have felt it necessary that he clarify his stance personally at the first available opportunity.
"In this different kind of war," Bush said the next day in remarks flagged by his staff as a clarification of his comments to NBC, "we may never sit down at a peace table. But make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win."
But the reality is that even if victory only means getting back to a stage where terrorism is not an existential threat to the United States, it may not be achievable.
The fact is that the dissemination of the technology and knowledge to make weapons of mass destruction has passed a critical point.
"If you were to try and draw up a list of everyone in the world who could make a biological or chemical weapon that could kill everyone in this vast hall," former Iraq weapons hunter David Kay told a recent gathering in Washington's huge new convention center, "it would be essentially endless."
"The capabilities cat is out of the bag," he concluded.
And that means the threat to the United States cannot be dialed back except by a very different kind of victory -- a triumph over the ideology of hatred that drives al-Qaida and other religious extremists.

That is a victory which cannot be won -- or even really waged -- with military power, and if the president and his supporters will not admit as much to the American people, they do not deserve to win the election.

I don't believe we will get the judgement, nor the direction, necessary to make us safer from terroism, by President Bush.

BWhite · 2004-10-19 13:24:38

If Kerry's policies had been enacted Saddam Huseein would still control Kuwait and the Soviet Union would very possibly still have missiles pointed at us. We still wouldn't have seen 9/11 coming, and we'd still be wandering around Afghanistan wondering what went wrong.

If Saddam had continued to control Kuwait, 9/11 would not have happened.

bin Laden got angry at the US and the Saudis after they refused to let his Afghan fighters (the ones who fought the Soviets) attempt the liberation of Kuwait.

= = =

And, so long as Bush attempts to stand up a secular government to balance Sistani (an anti-Iranian, more or less pacificst Shia - - whom bin Laden hates) Sistani will not rally his people to help quell the insurgency.

(From his perspective, let your enemies fight, better that US Marines police Fallajuh and contain Sadr than militia loyal to Sistani)

Once we accept that Sistani is the best we can do (an anti-Iranian, semi-pacifist Shia who is despised by bin Laden as an apostate to the true Sunni/Wahabi strain of Islam) we give him the Shia regions and leave.

We gives the Kurds Kirkuk and their own country and the bastard Sunni/Baath get NO oil.

Sistani's people are those people favorably portrayed in the Gulf War One movie "Three Kings" - - the one with George Clooney.

= = =

"What are you doing?"

"Its C4, sir. We tape it to these footballs and see how far we can throw it."

"I can see that. But my question is: 'Why are you doing that?'"

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-19 13:30:36

Here's the thing, no one is saying terrorism is some finite thing that can be destroyed. Sure, it's always going to exist and the best we can do is minimize it and contain it. So how do we do that? Certainly there are social, economic and cultural factors that need to be addressed, but of equal importance is the reality that sometimes you have to kill terrorists. We may not be able to end terrorism for all time, but we can destroy a particular terrorist group that has attacked us. We can go on the offensive, tip them off balance and fight them at a time and place of our choosing, not theirs.

You cannot win with a purely defensive strategy.

Unfortunately the country has become so polarized that pols are prone to asinine stretches of logic, we have a "War on Terror" and a Bushie just said we can't end terrorism! Gotcha!

Stupid. Yes, we pick misleading names for our little crusades, names that imply striving for impossible goals. How's that War on Poverty going? Can't win it? Oh shit, all this time I thought poverty was a big mean beastie that steals food from minority children. They lied to us! Or we can stop attaching so much significance to catchy little slogans and look at the real situation. Terrorism has always and always will be with us, but the particular terrorist threat of al Qaeda can be crushed. Islamic terrorism, of which it is a part, can be weakened and brought down. They're on the defensive now, that's why they fight so hard in Iraq. Now is the time to push harder. I have a strong suspicion that John Kerry will take a breather instead.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-10-18 17:21:12

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#2 2004-10-18 20:45:20

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#3 2004-10-19 05:52:44

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#4 2004-10-19 07:09:05

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#5 2004-10-19 08:13:35

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#6 2004-10-19 08:28:15

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#7 2004-10-19 08:34:26

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#8 2004-10-19 08:43:35

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#9 2004-10-19 08:51:21

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#10 2004-10-19 08:54:17

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#11 2004-10-19 08:55:33

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#12 2004-10-19 08:56:31

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#13 2004-10-19 08:56:49

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#14 2004-10-19 08:58:13

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#15 2004-10-19 08:59:48

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#16 2004-10-19 09:00:58

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#17 2004-10-19 11:37:00

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#18 2004-10-19 11:45:32

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#19 2004-10-19 12:10:58

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#20 2004-10-19 12:46:02

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#21 2004-10-19 13:08:21

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#22 2004-10-19 13:10:56

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#23 2004-10-19 13:11:41

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#24 2004-10-19 13:24:38

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#25 2004-10-19 13:30:36

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

Board footer