Posted on 01/23/2005 1:05:25 PM PST by tbird5
Will George W. Bush spend the next few years backing down from the ambitious strategy he outlined in the Bush Doctrine for fighting and winning World War IV?
To be sure, Bush himself still calls it the "war on terrorism," and has shied away from giving the name World War IV to the great conflict into which we were plunged by 9/11. (World War III, in this accounting, was the cold war.) Yet he has never hesitated to compare the fight against radical Islamism, and the forces nurturing and arming it, with those earlier struggles against Nazism and Communism. Nor has he flinched from suggesting that achieving victory as the Bush Doctrine defines it may take as long as it took to win World War III (which lasted more than four decades—from the promulgation of the Truman Doctrine in 1947 until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989).
Even more than the Truman Doctrine in its time, the Bush Doctrine was subjected to a ferocious assault by domestic opponents from the moment it was enunciated. Then, when Bush actually started acting on it, the ferocity grew even more intense, finally reaching record levels of vituperation during the presidential campaign. But in defiance of everything that was being thrown at him, and in spite of setbacks in Iraq that posed a serious threat to his reelection, Bush never yielded an inch. Instead of scurrying for protective cover from the assault, he stood out in the open and countered by reaffirming his belief in the soundness of the doctrine as well as his firm intention to stick with it in the years ahead.
(Excerpt) Read more at commentarymagazine.com ...
Read this article a couple days. It's a must read. But, with Bush's inauguration speech, I doubt he will be backing away from the Bush doctrine in his 2nd term.
IF this erupted into an all out war it would be World War III, NOT World War IV. I'm going to attribute this error to the complexities of the Roman Numeral system or to the lack of the author's historical knowledge.
The Cold War had battles in Korea and Vietnam and near escalations in Cuba and some that are only now coming to light.
Those were more like jostling for influence and prestige than real wars. If they were real wars Koreans and Vietnamese would fly the American flag today.
I think the moniker "World War" should apply when you have total war between all of the dominant powers on the planet.
Venom, vitriol and vituperation from the weak and treason-biased leftist wolverines won't change the shape of things to come. Not having girly-men making decisions is a change for the better...
If its only just comming to light it's not really a major event that affects every country in the world in a major way then is it?
Calling everything a World War diminishes the impact of those words.
You obviously didn't read closely.
He made it clear he considered the Cold War to be 'WW III'.
I agree with him.
Has the President ever (as Podhoretz claims) specifically identified the enemy as "radical Islamism"??
As Mel says at the end of the movie Patriot, HOLD THE LINE, HOLD THE LINE, no retreat!
This can be blamed on Bush for failing to take real action against terror-supporting states while becoming mired in Iraq; for failing to secure the borders; for failing to take prudent steps to prevent entry of terrorists; for failing to root out sleepers and moles within the U.S.
However, a nuke in Chicago or a Smallpox release in Cleveland or a dirty bomb in Boston or a real nuke in Long Beach Harbor should and (hopefully) will bring an all-out nuclear attack on those terror states; a recall of troops for homeland security duty; deportation of all visa-holders from terror-supporting states; a securing of the borders; a complete revamp of "legal" immigration policy and the INS.
If this does not happen after the "next" 9/11 we are finished; Western Civilization will be lost. We shall see if Bush is up to what must be done.
--Boris
Or your inability to realize that the Cold War involved more countrys to fight communism and resulted in far more deaths in all of WWII! This is WW4, and no I need no Roman Numeral help!
i agree with the IV. i was in WWIII.
"One can only admire Hendrickson’s candor in admitting what is usually hotly denied: that even many leading realists, along with many liberal internationalists, are rooting for an American defeat."
{snip} "Instead of taking to the streets, the realists and the liberal internationalists will go back to their word processors and redouble their ongoing efforts to turn public opinion against the Bush Doctrine. Mainly they will try to do so by demonstrating over and over again that the doctrine is already failing its first great encounter with "hard reality" in Iraq."
The "realists" are what Mark Steyn call "stability junkies", who value stability more than anything else in foreign policy. They don't hate America and think it's the source of all evil, as many on the left do, but they do believe that it is not possible to radically change the political nature of other countries.
I don't understand those guys at all, because Germany and Japan after WWII offer the only necessary counter-example.
The liberal internationlists are the ones that cheer the UN, France, et.al. over America, and many of them are America hating. So I expected no less from them. They want us to fail, so that their transnational authority can take control, for our own good, of course.
But for the realists to hope we fail... that's really disappointing. They apparently feel that their foreign policy wisdom is so special (despite the Japan/Germany counterexample), and they are so sure this effort to transform the Middle East will fail, that they want it to fail as soon as possible so that we get back to a more routine and realistic foreign policy (where they are calling the shots again, naturally). I would have hoped that anyone who believed in America as the leading light of freedom in the world would wish us well in this endeavor, even if they thought it would probably fail. Alas, no.
While I agree with a lot of what Bush says, there is a lot I also disagree with (e.g., Palestinian state, amnesty for illegal immigrants, etc). IMHO--he missed a golden opportuntity to mobilize American for the current war (and it is a war).
For example: he urged people to "go shopping" right after 911 (as opposed to enlisting). In order to make his strategy in Iraq work (its kind of wobbly now), the US has to drain the WHOLE swamp (including Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the PA).
Doing this requires a much larger military than what we have right now. This is a hard thing to come to terms with in a Government where 80 cents on the dollar goes to social spending of one kind or another. Rumsfeld's problem is that he doesn't want to increase the size of the military, mostly because of what it will cost. Instead we have a penny-wise/pound foolish situation where we may eventually hand a victory to our enemies by taking ineffective half measures.
Will this be expensive? Hell yes! However, the alternative is an expensive, long stalemate vs. an expensive, relatively short war. And once we're close to REALLY winning, you'll see the likes of France and Russia get involved to stay in the game.
The Cold War was World War III.
Too many people on this forum confuse George Bush's destiny with that of Jesus Christ. I don't think the President has it in him to do what is necessary.
Must read from Podhoretz.
Sets up the obstacles and obstructionists to
Bush's second term policies, then knocks them down
with hit's in the black.
Excellent read.
The Cold War was WW 3.
And a few that haven't. Ever.
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.