Monday, September 27, 2004
More Bush doctrine, not less
The Volokh Conspiracy wants to know if Iraq war hawks are still hawkish. Of course! Just remember all the reasons for this war.
Last week Kerry tried to depict Bush as a flip-flopper by noting that the Bush administration listed over twenty different reasons to take out Hussein's dictatorship. Good to hear the left admit that, after a year of pretending that the war was only about WMD (which indeed was plenty of reason on its own). The most important reason is the Bush Doctrine: any regime that gives safe harbor to the terrorists must cease to exist. We are cleaning out a terrorist haven. This is not an option. This is necessity.
The Bush doctrine also explains why hawks are not deterred by the continuing violence in Iraq. Current troubles are the result of our reluctance to follow the Bush doctrine WITHIN Iraq. Out of concern for Sunni sentiment, Fallujah was allowed to become a safe harbor for the terrorists. I thought when we pulled out of Fallujah back in April that it was a terrible mistake. The difficulty for us in the war on terrorism is that the enemy is elusive. Anytime he is willing to fight, that is our chance to kill him. We need to make maximum use of that opportunity, not retreat from it. We did, and are paying a heavy price, with Fallujah continuing as a home base for car bombers. Thus the current violence is not a strike against the Bush doctrine but an affirmation of it. If letting Fallujah continue as a home base for car bombers makes things this much harder in Iraq, think of how much harder the war on terror would be if the whole of Iraq remained a terrorist friendly country under Hussein.
The administration had serious reasons for backing off of Fallujah in April. It was worried that by engaging the enemy we might turn ordinary Sunnis into fighters. Personally, I don't find that rationale convincing. Ordinary people are not in general eager to join a group that our military is aggressively destroying. Suicide is fanatic behavior, and the fanatics are exactly who we want to see step up and fight. Still, I recognize that waiting to take on Fallujah until after power was handed over to Allawi's intrim government makes action in Fallujah even more propitious now. We have paid a high price for waiting, as Fallujah's bomb factories have gotten geared up. But so long as we take the terrorists out now, the harm is temporary, and might even be outweighed by the benefits. Who knows, maybe the guys with all the information actually know better than me! Unlike Kerry, I believe I should remain alert to that possibility. Viscious second guessing of the nation's war effort somehow just doesn't seem quite right.
As for what criteria to use over the coming months to judge success, that will be first and foremost a matter of whether W wins re-election. This is no Vietnam, where the enemy has the backing of a billion Chinese. We are fighting a rag tag army backed by a neighboring country, Iran, that is itself ripe for toppling. Iran is desperate, but the more it actually supplies men and material, the more it unite the Iraqis against the anti-democratic side. We have Iran between a rock and a hard place. All we have to do is not quit, which means not elect a Democrat. How about NEVER AGAIN?
If ordinary Iraqis start fighting us in large numbers, that will be a sign of trouble, but so long as the fighters are fanatical Islamo-fascist scum, drawn to Iraq like moths to a flame, it may lengthen the Iraq war, but it will shorten the war on terror. For however long they want to give us lemons, we can just make lemonade, so long as we don't get a chicken-shit cut-and-runner for president.
UPDATE: Kerry's reference to Bush's many rationales for the Iraq war came in his speech at New York University on the 20th, where he said: "By one count, the President offered 23 different rationales for this war."
Last week Kerry tried to depict Bush as a flip-flopper by noting that the Bush administration listed over twenty different reasons to take out Hussein's dictatorship. Good to hear the left admit that, after a year of pretending that the war was only about WMD (which indeed was plenty of reason on its own). The most important reason is the Bush Doctrine: any regime that gives safe harbor to the terrorists must cease to exist. We are cleaning out a terrorist haven. This is not an option. This is necessity.
The Bush doctrine also explains why hawks are not deterred by the continuing violence in Iraq. Current troubles are the result of our reluctance to follow the Bush doctrine WITHIN Iraq. Out of concern for Sunni sentiment, Fallujah was allowed to become a safe harbor for the terrorists. I thought when we pulled out of Fallujah back in April that it was a terrible mistake. The difficulty for us in the war on terrorism is that the enemy is elusive. Anytime he is willing to fight, that is our chance to kill him. We need to make maximum use of that opportunity, not retreat from it. We did, and are paying a heavy price, with Fallujah continuing as a home base for car bombers. Thus the current violence is not a strike against the Bush doctrine but an affirmation of it. If letting Fallujah continue as a home base for car bombers makes things this much harder in Iraq, think of how much harder the war on terror would be if the whole of Iraq remained a terrorist friendly country under Hussein.
The administration had serious reasons for backing off of Fallujah in April. It was worried that by engaging the enemy we might turn ordinary Sunnis into fighters. Personally, I don't find that rationale convincing. Ordinary people are not in general eager to join a group that our military is aggressively destroying. Suicide is fanatic behavior, and the fanatics are exactly who we want to see step up and fight. Still, I recognize that waiting to take on Fallujah until after power was handed over to Allawi's intrim government makes action in Fallujah even more propitious now. We have paid a high price for waiting, as Fallujah's bomb factories have gotten geared up. But so long as we take the terrorists out now, the harm is temporary, and might even be outweighed by the benefits. Who knows, maybe the guys with all the information actually know better than me! Unlike Kerry, I believe I should remain alert to that possibility. Viscious second guessing of the nation's war effort somehow just doesn't seem quite right.
As for what criteria to use over the coming months to judge success, that will be first and foremost a matter of whether W wins re-election. This is no Vietnam, where the enemy has the backing of a billion Chinese. We are fighting a rag tag army backed by a neighboring country, Iran, that is itself ripe for toppling. Iran is desperate, but the more it actually supplies men and material, the more it unite the Iraqis against the anti-democratic side. We have Iran between a rock and a hard place. All we have to do is not quit, which means not elect a Democrat. How about NEVER AGAIN?
If ordinary Iraqis start fighting us in large numbers, that will be a sign of trouble, but so long as the fighters are fanatical Islamo-fascist scum, drawn to Iraq like moths to a flame, it may lengthen the Iraq war, but it will shorten the war on terror. For however long they want to give us lemons, we can just make lemonade, so long as we don't get a chicken-shit cut-and-runner for president.
UPDATE: Kerry's reference to Bush's many rationales for the Iraq war came in his speech at New York University on the 20th, where he said: "By one count, the President offered 23 different rationales for this war."
Comments:
<< Home
We managed to bring about the fall of the USSR by containment and economic pressure. That was a repressive, murderous regime. How many Americans died in the effort? Libya, a better comparison, has come around from containment and economic pressure. How many Americans died in that effort? There was NO compelling reason to invade Iraq - no WMD, no links to Al-Quaida. Saddam was no threat to us and in fact was a counterbalance to a greater threat- the Iranians. George Bush senior knew this. Have you noticed him speaking out in favor of this war?
Iraq is another link in a long chain of wars, fought for the sake of fighting, to keep America up to date with our armaments, to use armaments up so that defense contractors can make more, so that the Brown & Root/Halliburtons can continue with their plundering of the world and the American taxpayer, to raise the price of oil, to appease meglomaniacal Texans' hunger for empire, and to re-elect warmongerers so they can keep the destructive cycle going.
Whoever the tinpot dictator is, they always want to sell us oil at the best price they can get. There was no reason to invade, and the magnitude of the error will become clearer and clearer as time goes on.
Iraq is another link in a long chain of wars, fought for the sake of fighting, to keep America up to date with our armaments, to use armaments up so that defense contractors can make more, so that the Brown & Root/Halliburtons can continue with their plundering of the world and the American taxpayer, to raise the price of oil, to appease meglomaniacal Texans' hunger for empire, and to re-elect warmongerers so they can keep the destructive cycle going.
Whoever the tinpot dictator is, they always want to sell us oil at the best price they can get. There was no reason to invade, and the magnitude of the error will become clearer and clearer as time goes on.
# posted by 
: 10:26 AM
: 10:26 AM
Briefly...
"We managed to bring about the fall of the USSR by containment and economic pressure. That was a repressive, murderous regime. How many Americans died in the effort?"
USSR had nukes making toppling them... er, troublesome. Containing them cost us upwards of 100,000 lives (just American in Korea, Vietnam, and other brushfire wars).
"Libya, a better comparison, has come around from containment and economic pressure. How many Americans died in that effort?"
Oh, and a little thing called the example of Iraq courtesy George W. Bush.
"There was NO compelling reason to invade Iraq - no WMD, no links to Al-Quaida. Saddam was no threat to us and in fact was a counterbalance to a greater threat- the Iranians."
I like the COMPELLING qualifier meaning that there were reasons, just none that were COMPELLING from your point of view. I assume from this that you would have approved an invasion of Iran in March of 2003 then? No? Bueller?
"George Bush senior knew this. Have you noticed him speaking out in favor of this war?"
You're right, I haven't heard him speaking out. Maybe it's because he strongly disagrees with his son. Maybe not. Maybe he's letting his son be President instead of giving him public advice.
"Iraq is another link in a long chain of wars, fought for the sake of fighting, to keep America up to date with our armaments, to use armaments up so that defense contractors can make more, so that the Brown & Root/Halliburtons can continue with their plundering of the world and the American taxpayer, to raise the price of oil, to appease meglomaniacal Texans' hunger for empire, and to re-elect warmongerers so they can keep the destructive cycle going.
Whoever the tinpot dictator is, they always want to sell us oil at the best price they can get. There was no reason to invade, and the magnitude of the error will become clearer and clearer as time goes on."
And the training wheels come flying off.
"We managed to bring about the fall of the USSR by containment and economic pressure. That was a repressive, murderous regime. How many Americans died in the effort?"
USSR had nukes making toppling them... er, troublesome. Containing them cost us upwards of 100,000 lives (just American in Korea, Vietnam, and other brushfire wars).
"Libya, a better comparison, has come around from containment and economic pressure. How many Americans died in that effort?"
Oh, and a little thing called the example of Iraq courtesy George W. Bush.
"There was NO compelling reason to invade Iraq - no WMD, no links to Al-Quaida. Saddam was no threat to us and in fact was a counterbalance to a greater threat- the Iranians."
I like the COMPELLING qualifier meaning that there were reasons, just none that were COMPELLING from your point of view. I assume from this that you would have approved an invasion of Iran in March of 2003 then? No? Bueller?
"George Bush senior knew this. Have you noticed him speaking out in favor of this war?"
You're right, I haven't heard him speaking out. Maybe it's because he strongly disagrees with his son. Maybe not. Maybe he's letting his son be President instead of giving him public advice.
"Iraq is another link in a long chain of wars, fought for the sake of fighting, to keep America up to date with our armaments, to use armaments up so that defense contractors can make more, so that the Brown & Root/Halliburtons can continue with their plundering of the world and the American taxpayer, to raise the price of oil, to appease meglomaniacal Texans' hunger for empire, and to re-elect warmongerers so they can keep the destructive cycle going.
Whoever the tinpot dictator is, they always want to sell us oil at the best price they can get. There was no reason to invade, and the magnitude of the error will become clearer and clearer as time goes on."
And the training wheels come flying off.
# posted by : 12:39 PM
: 12:39 PM
The war in the Middle East for dummies
Dummies believe the reason why we invaded Iraq was Saddam’s WMDs. Surprise! The real issue is the threat posed by Syria, Iran, Iraq and the Islamic terrorist manifestation called Al Qaeda.
After 9/11, Saddam believed the “oil for food” fraud would stop the invasion because of the financial bribes in France, Germany and Russia. He was wrong.
Iran’s potential nuclear capability has been long forecasted. Iran and Syria have been the major source of terrorism directed at Israel. Syria channeled Iran’s terrorism through a cooperating Iraq. Al Qaeda has been a willing partner in support of the efforts to terrorize Israel, as has Saddam in Iraq. We now have Iran surrounded by our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. And Syria is under heavy scrutiny. Al Qaeda is on the run in Iraq.
Syria and Iran are not dummies. They know the Democrats are supporting the terrorists by their criticism of Bush and the war in Iraq. The Democrats hope the dummies will not understand the real game plan in the Middle East so that they can embarrass George Bush!
Why hasn’t the President explained this so that dummies can understand? I believe he should, but he is relying on diplomatic means to hopefully bring Syria and Iran to their senses. But diplomacy doesn’t work with the Democrats. For they hope Bush fails in the Middle East so that they can regain power. Now that is a dumb political tactic that betrays our military. Even dummies understand that!
Otis Page Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 805-489-5811
Post a Comment
Dummies believe the reason why we invaded Iraq was Saddam’s WMDs. Surprise! The real issue is the threat posed by Syria, Iran, Iraq and the Islamic terrorist manifestation called Al Qaeda.
After 9/11, Saddam believed the “oil for food” fraud would stop the invasion because of the financial bribes in France, Germany and Russia. He was wrong.
Iran’s potential nuclear capability has been long forecasted. Iran and Syria have been the major source of terrorism directed at Israel. Syria channeled Iran’s terrorism through a cooperating Iraq. Al Qaeda has been a willing partner in support of the efforts to terrorize Israel, as has Saddam in Iraq. We now have Iran surrounded by our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. And Syria is under heavy scrutiny. Al Qaeda is on the run in Iraq.
Syria and Iran are not dummies. They know the Democrats are supporting the terrorists by their criticism of Bush and the war in Iraq. The Democrats hope the dummies will not understand the real game plan in the Middle East so that they can embarrass George Bush!
Why hasn’t the President explained this so that dummies can understand? I believe he should, but he is relying on diplomatic means to hopefully bring Syria and Iran to their senses. But diplomacy doesn’t work with the Democrats. For they hope Bush fails in the Middle East so that they can regain power. Now that is a dumb political tactic that betrays our military. Even dummies understand that!
Otis Page Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 805-489-5811
# posted by : 8:36 PM
: 8:36 PM 
<< Home
