Posted on 09/13/2005 3:49:22 AM PDT by F14 Pilot
The War on Terror is over. What started as a bold campaign to “bring justice to our enemies” across the globe has been redefined as, essentially, a counter-insurgency action in Iraq, the express goal of which is to prepare the new Iraqi government to defend itself, “and then our troops will come home with the honor they have earned.” As President Bush himself stated during his June 2005 speech at Fort Bragg:
“Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.”
“Stand down.” In military parlance, this means to stop fighting. But while we have made significant progress in disrupting and eliminating terrorist cells worldwide, and the Taliban and Saddam have been deposed, our enemies have not yet been defeated, and they continue to plot our death and destruction. Nevertheless, pressured by domestic opposition and an undersized military, Bush clearly has retreated from the promise he made to the country on September 20, 2001, the night he declared the War on Terror:
“I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people.
Remember the Bush Doctrine?
In a series of speeches following 9/11, the President articulated what became known as the Bush Doctrine. The Bush Doctrine was considered, by supporters and opponents alike, as a “startling” and “radical” new approach to combating the threat of international terrorism. The Bush Doctrine consists of four fundamental principles. The first is that the war on terror “begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” (Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People 9/20/01.) In other words, the war on terror would not be a limited engagement, aimed solely at punishing the terrorists responsible for 9/11. Bush rightly recognized that Al Qaeda was just one among many groups of Islamic extremists operating worldwide whose “directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinction among military and civilians, including women and children.” American security, and world peace, therefore depends on rooting out and destroying every one of these groups.
The second principle underlying the Bush Doctrine is that our enemy in this war is not just the “radical network of terrorists,” but “every government that supports them.” As Bush put it in his statement to the nation on 9/11:
"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."
The Bush Doctrine thus promised to end this nation’s decades-long practice of turning a blind eye to the regimes that aided and abetted terrorism. Henceforth, Bush declared, “we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.” In addition to Afghanistan, where Al Qaeda was based, these nations (according to the State Department ) included Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Cuba, and North Korea. Further, every nation now had a “choice to make”: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” As Bush bluntly warned in October 2001 when announcing that military operations had begun in Afghanistan, countries that make the wrong choice “will take that lonely path at their own peril.”
.
BUSH Presidency = The LIBERTY Century
BUSH Doctrine = FREEDOM for the World
.
Whatever
Bush failed to snap his fingers, waive his hands back and forth and make the world all warm & fuzzy again.
Time will tell.
The Bush doctrine = undefensible hypocrisy, given that years later any terrorist can walk into the United States unmolested at his leisure, open traitors suffer zero consequence for their actions, and the US government funds terrorists in Israel to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
I was gung-ho for the Bush doctrine. If only he'd meant it!
“Stand down.” In military parlance, this means to stop fighting. But while we have made significant progress in disrupting and eliminating terrorist cells worldwide, and the Taliban and Saddam have been deposed, our enemies have not yet been defeated, and they continue to plot our death and destruction. Nevertheless, pressured by domestic opposition and an undersized military, Bush clearly has retreated from the promise he made to the country on September 20, 2001, the night he declared the War on Terror:
“I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people.
The author is making a straw man argument. Bush did not say that we would stand down in the war on terror. His statement about "standing down" was made in a speech about Iraq and is exclusive to Iraq. We need to finish that job before we move on to the next one.
Unconditional surrender- dead because of defeats in WWII. We cannot possibly do it. Why are we fighting Germans when we should be fighting Japan? FDR has lost his way. All is gloom.
We didn't wait to "finish the job" in Afghanistan before moving on to Iraq. Terrorists won't wait for us to methodically go down our todo list. We need to kill them - now.
Whether the country would have supported mobilization in October 2001 is debatable (I think we would have, but that's just me).
The moment, however, has passed - it probably was passed by November 2002. At that time, I was engaged in civilian smallpox immunization planning, and the administration's attempts at coordination were resisted at every turn by local businesses, by Bush-hating socialists, and by popular passivity.
Secretary Rumsfeld's comment - that you fight wars with the army you have - was true as far as it goes. We DID fight the Japs with the army and navy we had in December 1941 - and they kicked our ass, and our allies ass, halfway across the Pacific and Indian oceans.
Our enemies are numerous, and they occupy a large, relatively contiguous land mass in Asia.
No one, that I know of, has seriously proposed that they be conquered and subjected to our will.
So, why should the troops not come home?
Actually you are more of the "Bushbot" in that you are the same vein as the MSM robotically saying that Bush can do nothing right.
The Bush Doctrine is alive and well.
Going through Syria like a buzz saw and cleaning out the Bekaa Valley of Lebanon -- and I mean really cleaning it out -- before handing it back to the Lebanese is something we have long deferred and something that we've needed to do since 1983.
The Bekaa is where the worst kidnappers and terrorists are holed up, with their Iranian towel-buddies, with Iranian mint-supplied paper and equipment with which they've been counterfeiting U.S. currency for 20 years, and it's very likely where, if Saddam had any biological or chemical weapons salted away, or any stockpiles of bomb-grade radioisotopes, we will finally find them, if not in Syria somewhere.
It is clear that the author is somehow projecting those words onto the entire WOT. It is equally clear that, that is not what Bush meant.
Gee! Here I was all ready to join you in defense of your views ,Wing Commander.
Have peeled off . Com needs no added support. Swatting fliesis a piece 'o cake.
On the side.
correction: That was supposed to be for F-14.
The moon is made of green cheese.
I say so.
Ain't that the truth. I can be critical of Bush on 90% of my posts, but as soon as I defend or support Bush on something, someone inevitably lables me a 'bushbot'.
President Bush is, first and foremost, a politician.
The Bush Doctrine.
He did mean it.
And he still means it.
But it's kind of hard to defend the country when the Democrats and MSM are gunning for you from all sides, and people like you don't have his six.
I still support the Bush Doctrine. If only I could get the President to support it too, I would be perfectly happy. But it's disingenuous to say that the MSM and the Democrats are the cause of the Bush admin leaving the borders open. It's fantastical as well to say that those are the cause of him giving millions to Palestinian terrorists.
I had his six for years and years, until it became plain and clear after repeated smacks to the face that he doesn't have ours.
You just know that the liberal MSM would love for everyone to believe this BUMP!
I wasn't so gung-ho, but I would have supported it. And what we have ponied up, half a greenback, is worse than none. It just disappoints the folks who expected the whole shebang, both in the American military and our supporters overseas. Sure, we're better off with the U.S. in Iraq, because the military is the target of terrorism instead of civilians. But wouldn't we better off actually pacifying the region, a region far larger than Europe, with a U.S. army inflated with the same soldier-to-U.S.-citizen ratio of that of WWII, instead of hoping we put down an insurrection with an army that's a not even a tenth of that size? Bush set a goal we as a country probably aren't willing to tackle without him making the war come to life for everyone. The man hasn't even asked for something as simple as carpools-for-victory, for crissake!
Now, I don't think the doctrine is RIP. But it'll take another massive terrorist attack to get things to the level of alert they should be. When you don't ask the country to mobilize behind you after 9/11, when you don't cut domestic spending for military spending though you're 'in a war' after 9/11, when you don't protect the borders but you practically militarize the airports, you prove you're not going to fight a new war but fighting the last one, and asking for business as usual. Going for more Johnson-style guns AND butter...just business as usual, and bad business at that. Even FDR had the sense to ask for sacrifice, and even cut his pet programs like the CCC.
nutz
When he returns to the fight against the Marxist/Islamist coalition that is actively trying to destroy the United States, he'll find a lot of us here who never left thankful for his assistance.
This is where the rubber hits the road.
Too many in the country aren't willing to do the hard thing. It has nothing to do with "Bush making the war come to life for everyone."
What a crock.
I remember the first six months of the Bush presidency.
I remarked at the time that our President was out in a patrol car, the only cop on the beat, with no one to call for backup.
You haven't got a clue how much he has done in such a short time with such incredible opposition at home and abroad.
leaked by a CIA Clintonista?
Ah geez not this sh*t again!!!!
"The Bush doctrine = undefensible hypocrisy, given that years later any terrorist can walk into the United States unmolested at his leisure, open traitors suffer zero consequence for their actions, and the US government funds terrorists in Israel to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars."
So unless he deals with every issue perfectly, he's a hipocrit that can't be defended?
I find Bush's lax approach to securing our borders appalling. However, I do recognize the huge strides in foreign policy he's made and that he's been willing to take the fight to countries that support terrorism and threaten the United States instead of running and hiding.
He's started what is likely to be a long process, and his approach is far from perfect, especially when domestic security is concerned. However, he has made great strides in undooing some of the harm the CLinton administration did.
He has peacefully resolved the Nuclear standoff between Pakistan and India without hardly a word of it in the press. He has tied up the terrorist states fighting in thier own back yard instead of bringing the fight to us.
If your standards are that as long as he fails at something you'll turn against him, you'll never find a president who you will support for long.
I interviewed the founders of realclearpolitics.com at CPAC two or three years ago, and it was so obvious that they were woefully undereducated in history, science, warfare and philosophy. The only thing they were up on was current politics, communications and some political science.
Being a modern day poli-sci guru/journalist is just not enough to make educated commentary on treaties, warfare, and the promotion of democracy worldwide as a preemption against the rise and spread of communism.
A lot of stupid comments on this thread.
Consider what these liberals have accused President Bush over the poor of NO. Now consider "IF" he without authority started rounding up millions and millions of people and started sending them back to country of origin.
Congress is the body that writes the laws, and appropriates the fund to enforce the laws. People who have a problem with lack of border control need to demand their congress person to do their job.
The liberals inc., are waited with baited breath for the first load of human beings being rounded up and sent out. Could we say it is a "religious" issue.
How would you propose we do that with the current active duty combat forces stretch to their limit with Afghanistan and Iraq?
"If your standards are that as long as he fails at something you'll turn against him, you'll never find a president who you will support for long."
So true.
This is an instant gratification society.
I submit that even what some are calling "failures" are a snapshot in time. Not a "failure" for all time to come, but a pause, or a less than fully satisfactory results albeit some progress is made type-of-thing.
This President, while not perfect as is no President, has attempted and accomplished absolutely amazing and stunning feats. Some are obvious now. But many could not possibly play out until a long time from now.
One for the history books, this President is...
Iraq News newsletter (Laurie Mylroie) Tuesday, 09/13/2005
U.S. Envoy Warns Syria To Change Pro-Terrorist Policies on Iraq
(Khalilzad says time is running out for Damascus) (530)
By David Shelby
Washington File Staff Writer
Washington – Syria is the “number one offender” in the Middle East region working to impede the success of Iraq, according to U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad.
In a September 12 briefing, the ambassador said Syria is knowingly allowing terrorists to use its territory for training exercises and permitting them to transit across Syria into Iraq and kill Iraqis.
There is blatant interference by Syria in Iraqi affairs by allowing these terrorists to come across… Our patience is running out. [The Iraqis patience] is running out. We have given them every opportunity to mend their ways, to change. They have not done that,” he said.
He added: “Let me tell our Syrian friends that they should not miscalculate, that they need to decide. Iraq… will succeed. Iraq is a neighboring state of Syria. Iraq is going to be a rich country. It’s going to be a strong country, a powerful country. It behooves Syria to have good relations with this country.”
Khalilzad said Syrian interference in Iraq “will be dealt with” and “all options are on the table” for addressing the problem if Damascus does not change its approach toward Iraq. “Syria has to decide what price it’s willing to pay in making Iraq’s success difficult, and time is running out for Damascus to decide on this issue,” he said.
The ambassador said he has been in discussions with Iraqi leaders about the transfer of security responsibilities to Iraqis.
We have formed a joint committee since I have been there with the Iraqi leaders and ourselves to define conditions for the increased transfer of responsibility, and we will come to some agreement with them in the next couple of months as to a vision of transfer of responsibility and a plan for transfer of responsibility that will be condition driven, and we will make that known to everyone,” he said.
He said that the security plan would be based on specific goals and timelines. He added that he believes a substantial withdrawal of U.S. and coalition forces can take place within the next two years.
Khalilzad also said he has been heartened to see average Iraqis taking increased responsibility for their own security in recent weeks. In particular, he pointed to the actions of Sunni tribesmen against the forces of Jordanian-born al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as a positive sign.
It’s critical for the success of Iraq that Iraqis, whether Sunni, Shia or Kurd, protect their country, defend their country, and the sign that I see in these tribes, in Sunni tribes standing up to Zarqawi, a positive development,” he said.
The ambassador said he is encouraged by the increasing popular interest in engaging in the political process, particularly within the Sunni community, where he said voter registration has been as high as 90 percent. “I’m very, very happy with the trend in terms of Iraqis registering to vote. That means that politics is coming to Iraq,” he said.
For additional information, see Iraq’s Political Process (http://usinfo.state.gov/mena/middle_east_north_africa/iraq/political_process.html).
(The Washington File is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
Iraq Defense Minister Blasts Syria for 'Exporting Destruction,' AFP
Iraq News (Laurie Mylroie ) ^ | September 11, 2005 | Agence France Press
Posted on 09/11/2005 5:21:18 PM EDT by Matchett-PI
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1482455/posts
Dulaimi accuses Syria of 'exporting destruction'
Iraqi Defence Minister Saadun al-Dulaimi accused neighbouring Syria of "exporting destruction" to his country by allowing insurgents to sneak across their border.
Iraqi authorities announced the closure of a border crossing to Syria near the rebel bastion town of Tal Afar where a major counter-insurgency offensive involving about 10,000 Iraqi and US troops was underway.
"I call on our neighbours to fear God and stop exporting destruction to Iraq," said the defence minister, in reference to Syria which stands accused in Baghdad of turning a blind eye to cross-border infiltrations.
"The regions of Al-Qaim, Hussayba, Rutbah and Rommana and others have been held hostage by terrorists coming from all countries and who have found no point of entry to Iraq other than Syria," Dulaimi said Sunday.
"Our problem is that all the infiltrations which bring death and terror take place through the 615-kilometre (370-mile) border with Syria," he said.
"We can not post a soldier every metre of the way but we will find a solution by the end of the year," he said. "They are wrong if they think that Iraq will deviate from its path to democracy."
The Iraqi government has closed the Rabia border crossing to Syria, with the exception of vehicles authorised by the interior minister.
To: All
AP: Iraqi Minister Criticizes Syria ~ He said that insurgent leaders were in Syria.....
Las Vegas Sun ^ | July 18, 2005 at 5:52:28 PDT | LOUIS MEIXLER ASSOCIATED PRESS
Posted on 07/18/2005 12:02:05 PM EDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1445330/posts
ISTANBUL, Turkey (AP) - Iraq's interior minister said Monday that Syria was not taking serious steps to stop insurgents from crossing its border into Iraq, adding that he had pictures and addresses of insurgent leaders in Syria.
Bayan Jabr, in an interview with The Associated Press, also indicated that he was not optimistic that Damascus would take measures to crack down on supporters of the insurgency on its territory.
"They say, 'We are ready to cooperate,' and I hope they cooperate, but only talking is not sufficient," Jabr said a day before the interior ministers of Iraq's neighbors were scheduled to meet in Istanbul. He said that insurgent leaders were in Syria "and I have addressees and pictures with me of these terrorists." But when asked whether he expected Syria to cooperate, Jabr shook his head.
"We have to protect our borders," he added.
Jabr also said that while Jordan was committed to stopping the flow of money from its territory to insurgents, many Jordanians and Iraqi expatriates in Jordan were supporting the militants. He pointed to Saddam Hussein's wife, Sajida, and his daughter, Raghad, who he said live in Jordan and sent $100 million to support the militants.
"Jordan doesn't support the insurgency, but the people in Jordan do," Jabr said, adding that "there are many Iraqis who support the insurgency who are living in Amman." Jabr also said that a trial for Saddam Hussein was important to send a message to insurgents that the Iraqi dictator will never return to power. He said that some former members of the regime "support the insurgency because they believe he will return." After a trial for the former Iraqi leader, "they will know he will never return back."
*
Syria, Iraq Link May Have Fueled Insurgency (Syria partners with Saddam's regime, Oil for Food) Fox News ^ | 7-27-05 Posted on 07/27/2005 8:47:06 PM EDT by Indy Pendance
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1451972/posts
WASHINGTON Congressional lawmakers on Wednesday laid out a detailed and disturbing picture of alleged Syrian complicity with Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
And because of that complicity, money funneled into Iraq may have gone to help fuel the insurgency currently targeting U.S. and coalition troops, as well as Iraqi civilians, said members of the House International Relations Joint Oversight Subcommittee.
Syria had a more than $3 billion role in funneling money and weapons to Saddam Hussein during the period of the scandal-plagued U.N. Oil-for-Food (search) program, according to documents obtained by the congressional panel.
The Syrian government, led by President Bashir Assad, isn't saying what it has done with that cash. But Congress fears it may now be in the hands of terrorists not just in Iraq but around the world.
"We see the bloody consquences of the arming of Iraq even going on today," Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., said Wednesday during a subcommittee hearing. "I wouldn't think that it would be irrational for us to conclude, madame chairman, that those funds are being filtered to those people who are financing this bloody insurgency that is going on in Iraq today."
Victor Comras, former member of the U.N. Al Qaeda monitoring group, responded by saying: "That's a fair assumption that at least part of these funds are being made available to support this insurgency and perhaps other terrorist activities."
But those accusations haven't gone over well with Syrian officials.
"They need a scapegoat and they like to blame Syria for their own failed policies in Iraq," Syrian Ambassador Imad Moustapha told reporters after the hearing.
The documents in question, prepared by IRS special agents, have emerged as a new avenue in Congress' investigation into Oil-for-Food.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
2 posted on 09/11/2005 5:32:46 PM EDT by Matchett-PI ( "History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." -- Dwight Eisenhower)
1988: The Reagan Doctrine is dead. The Soviet Union will be around long after our children's children are gone.
Commentary Magazine September 2004
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/podhoretz.htm
World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win by - Norman Podhoretz
"The stand down applies to Iraq when the objectives are meant. It is clear that the author is somehow projecting those words onto the entire WOT. It is equally clear that, that is not what Bush meant." ~ Jeff Head #14
Exactly.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1483376/posts?page=39#39
He already has the authority, the laws have long since been passed. He explicitly, pointedly, and repeatedly refuses to enforce the laws which it is his duty to enforce.
This has nothing to do with liberals. Nothing at all. The responsibility for the border fiasco rests squarely on the shoulders of the President.
We need to find a REAL cowboy.
The REAL "Bushbots" are those who robotically attack him no matter what the issue.
Those of us who are called "Bushbots" support him, while not agreeing with everything he does. In other words, we THINK. Bashers just bash.
btw, this article is nonsense. "Standing down" in Iraq doesn't mean surrender. It has only to do with the number of troops needed in Iraq..........not giving up in the war on terror.
Anyone who thinks the President has done that is woefully ignorant.....
I am referring to a) the immigration laws duly passed by the Congress of the United States of America; and b) the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government, violated by the massive numbers of non-citizens who vote as well as unchecked vote fraud by the opposition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.