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 ...
The Patriot was an excellent movie. Rough, bloody, and a good study in history. The most wrenching part is when the British burned down homes. Makes you think, doesn't it?
I see an interesting parallel between subscribing to foreign policy that is based on stability or rights of the governments and insisting on an education policy that stresses the importance of the public school system over the needs of children to learn. The interests of people are second.
World War III is what Podhoretz is calling the Cold War, hence the *IV attached to this war.
His case is compelling; all the world wars reached across the breadth of the planet, affected most all nations to a greater or lesser extent. The Cold war certainly fits this description, as does the WOT. The only difference between Cold War/WOT and the Wars I & II is one of degrees; in armies/navies mobilized and engaged in combat.
For my part, I prefer to call this war on terror, world war V - our French and Indian war was a secondary theater to a world wide struggle between the French & Brits (insert T-in-C here...).
My point is, these are just labels, Ace... they can call it whatever they want, just as long as we kill all the bad guys.
CGVet58
OK...Bump for later. It's as long and thorough as his WWIV commentary.
There ARE medals for anyone who served in the Cold War. They are there for the asking.
For example, WWIII would require China, Russia, Japan, Germany and Britain to be called a World War.
Japan and Germany had their militaries castrated after WWII. Hard to include them in post WWII discussion although US troops were stationed in both countries and CERTAINLY Germany was split in the Cold War.
It was a COLD war, that is why massive troops did not see combat. Sheesh. What is it that you don't like about that term?
It was not mere military manuevers and political posturing.
FWIW, WWIV is also a cold war at this point.
WWII was fought to stop Japanese Imperialism (under Shintism) and Nazism. Italian Fascism and Spanish Fascism were not the big threat.
Now we face Islamonazism/Islamofacism and it is a problem in India/Pakistan/Indonesia/Thailand/Spain/England/Netherlans/US/Russia/etc...
It IS a global threat.
There are 35 wars in the world today. Many of them are fought by muslims (sometimes against each other).
Sure there was. It was fought largely though espionage, fifth columnists, and infiltration.
There would have been no arms race (or at least it would have been delayed) without spies handing over nuclear secrets.
Our government certainly has been compromised by communists.
I have many differences with George Bush (chief among them are doubts about the wisdom of entering Iraq -- although I now believe we must see the experiment in democracy to its end – and many of his domestic healthcare/education/entitlement policies), but, at the same time, many of his leadership decisions have shown great character and courage.
As this article says, one of his deeply courageous acts was facing Tony Blair, our strongest ally, who has stood by us throughout the Iraq conflict, despite suffering terrible political setbacks as a result, and denying him every recent request to soften our stand in defense of Israel. It took a man of incredible personal strength and resolve to stand his ground against such a friend and ally. (I also believe Bush’s allegiance to Israel played a large part in Condoleezza Rice’s replacement of Colin Powell, whose state department covertly and consistently attempted to undermine Bush’s policy toward Israel.)
The following is where I part ways with Podhoretz (and, I suspect, maybe with you, too?). He describes what I call ‘isolationist conservatives’ as ‘superhawks’ and has this to say about them:
… the isolationism of the Left stems from the conviction that America is bad for the rest of the world, whereas the isolationism of the Right is based on the belief that the rest of the world is bad for America.
… another line of attack on the Bush Doctrine that has emanated from a neighborhood on the Right where utter ruthlessness is considered the only way to wage war, and where the idea of exporting democracy is thought to conflict with conservative political wisdom.
From that description, I believe that I fall into his ‘superhawk’ category. I wrote something last week on my view of the possibilities of ‘victory’ in Iraq. (If you have the time and inclination: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1321082/posts?page=41#41)
Although I do not believe we can now retreat from our commitment in Iraq (it’s a there's no turning back now scenario), I do not think that using our manpower, money, and influence in order to establish democracies, especially in the Middle East, is a realistic goal. Noble, yes. Realistic, no. Manpower, money and influence are finite quantities – all of which are in short supply already. And this is just our first effort to achieve a Bush Doctrine victory in that eternally-precarious (at best) region.
In a CIA report released just last week, it was determined that Iraq has become ‘a training ground, a place to recruit terrorists’, and has afforded them an ‘opportunity for enhancing technical threats’. It states that ‘Jihadists who are not killed in Iraq will most likely eventually return to their own country, and the spread of radical Islam will continue to grow.’
Looking even further over the horizon, it predicts that ‘…the key factors that spawned international terrorism show no signs of abating over the next fifteen years. Experts assess that the majority of international terrorist groups will continue to identify with radical Islam. The revival of Muslim identity will create a framework for the spread of radical Islamic ideology both inside and outside the Middle East, including Western Europe, Southeast Asia, and Central Asia. Al Qaeda will be superceded by other Islamic groups that will link up with local separatist movements, further de-centralizing these movements and making them more difficult to uncover.’
What does this say about the odds of democracy surviving in Iraq? (Not being established … long-term surviving)
The nations of the Middle East do not have to be democracies in order for us to expect of them that they neither harbor weapons of mass destruction, nor pose a deadly threat to us. First things first. Wishful thinking aside; survival priorities in order.
As distasteful as it may be, I think the only way to contain terrorism is to conserve our manpower, money and influence, super-focus on intelligence and offensive military preparedness, identify potential terrorist threats, and take them out decisively … without concern for an international consensus. Establishing democracies where democracies have never existed is simply too costly, in lives, in dollars, and in time better spent focusing solely on our own, and other free societies’, defense. A little more decisiveness aimed at those who would destroy us, and a little less concern for our ‘standing’ among the world was never more called for.
Bad intelligence (due in large part to the deliberate negligence of the previous administration) has been blamed for whatever mistakes have been made in this war. And I believe good intelligence, in place for a decade before, would have rendered the war itself unnecessary. A combination of good intelligence now (cost being no object), and concentrated, well-trained-and-equipped offensive military capabilities, much like that that Israel has shown when pushed to do so … only on a much grander scale … are a much more realistic, and far less costly, alternative to the open-ended goal of one-by-one democracy building (for reasons I cited in the link above).
Good intelligence would have verified (or not) the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, provided their location, disallowed their removal to Syria or elsewhere, and paved the way for their removal or destruction. Bad intelligence resulted in a guessing game, followed by the war in which we are now engaged.
It’s time to secure our borders, pour unprecedented money and manpower into our covert intelligence efforts, and identify where the greatest threats to our (and other freedom-loving civilizations) lie. There is no time for democracy-building. While we are focused on such noble endeavors, other ignoble plots aimed at our destruction are being hatched half a world away. The concept of finiteness, as opposed to open-ended-ness, needs to be grasped.
In addition to historically unprecedented focus on intelligence and decisive military strikes, we must also (reluctantly, it seems) shut down those Arab media (al-Jazeera in particular, but other radio and television stations as well) that, for decades, have been one of the main catalysts for the hatred of America/liberty and the recruitment of successive new generations of terrorists. These media outlets celebrate all terrorist acts and inspire terrorists to become martyrs defined in the blood of freedom-loving people. It’s time to shut down that source of terrorist propaganda and proselytization.
Also, a serious step toward eradicating terrorism that we have not yet had the courage to take would be declaring a complete halt to US, UN, and European Union financial support of the Palestinian Authority.
By allowing both of the above to continue to exist, we are funding our enemies, and turning a blind eye to some of their most powerful recruitment strategies.
Much of western Europe, and the liberal internationalists here at home, will vilify us for this kind of ‘hawkishness’. But we must turn a deaf ear to their whining. And that is where this ‘war’ will be won or lost. In the hearts and minds of America.
We are a society drawn toward, and enamored of, quick, painless fixes. But, at the same time, we have been conditioned to believe that decisiveness is equivalent to ruthlessness. All decisions have to be consensus-driven, debated ad-infinitum, and eventually infused with leftist/internationalist concessions. If we can de-program ourselves from that deadly mindset, see through the leftist media and political pacifist/diplomacy-with-terrorists mantras, ignore the internationalists and the self-indulgent likes of France, Germany and much of western Europe, we can win this ‘war’ by containing terrorism through intelligent identification and extermination of its sources.
Will innocents be killed? Will mistakes be made? Yes, unfortunately. But innocent blood will not be shed through brutal, sadistic, unholy vengeance. And, unless we are willing to become more focused/targeted and resolute in our determination for self-preservation, the rest of the world has little hope of escaping successively larger bloodbaths the likes of 9/11/01, or worse.
There is no stability to be achieved, or maintained, with terrorists. There is no peaceful coexistence to be realized with them. The only way to preserve liberty, here and worldwide, is to identify them (through an intelligence network such as the world has never seen) and eradicate them. No seeking a consensus. No equivocating. No apologizing.
God bless our courageous President. And may he continue to look to Him for strength, guidance and wisdom.
I’m out of words now.
Really, I am. :)
~ joanie
Especially
The nations of the Middle East do not have to be democracies in order for us to expect of them that they neither harbor weapons of mass destruction, nor pose a deadly threat to us. First things first. Wishful thinking aside; survival priorities in order.
Your argument about "finiteness" and "openended-ness" is what has been bothering me for a long time but I didn't know how to express it.
Thank you.
Brilliant.
You need to be sitting in Rice's or Rumsfeld's chair.
You have mail.
I think there is a large 'silent majority' of conservatives that feel the same way.
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.