Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A man of his word like it or lump it (An Aussie View)
The Australian ^ | 4 Feb 2005 | Greg Sheridan

Posted on 02/03/2005 3:40:41 PM PST by Cornpone

US President George W.Bush got a huge political shot in the arm from the success of the Iraqi election on Sunday and his State of the Union address demonstrates that renewed confidence.

The message on Iraq was clear. The US exit strategy only comes when the mission is accomplished, that is, when an Iraqi government is in power governing with the consent of its people, controlling its own territory and providing for its own security.

Bush's presidency will be judged by Iraq and he gave out a strong message yesterday - the US will stay the course.

Obviously, this does not mean the US will stay in Iraq indefinitely. It would surely be inconceivable for the US still tohave 140,000 troops in Iraq in four years' time.

But Bush was clear that he won't set any arbitrary deadline for US withdrawal. The US will withdraw when the job is done.

Bush's stubbornness - resolve to his admirers, inflexibility and simpleton certitudes to his detractors - is in fact one of his greatest strategic assets.

So much of strategic policy is about influencing the psychology of the battlefield. Bush's enemies have to contend with the fact that he doesn't change his position, he doesn't give up and he doesn't give in.

This is one reason he is so unpopular with intellectuals.

He doesn't celebrate doubt. Sticking firmly to a course, expressing ideas of right and wrong - this is the very anti-thesis of the ideal postmodern leader, who must not only see, but feel and express every angle of every question.

Bill Clinton was the epitome of the postmodern leader - he embraced every position on every issue. Bush is an earlier issue specimen - he says what he means and means what he says. Like it or lump it.

The speech also showed how deeply the Middle East will define the Bush presidency. Bush gave substance to his inauguration address by naming and shaming two US allies, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

He dealt with them politely and sweetly, but by calling on them to embrace democracy he made it clear that their present political arrangements are a serious problem.

But perhaps the biggest news out of the speech were the continued tough words for Syria and Iran, two Middle East dictatorships which continue to sponsor terror, while Iran is also engaged in a nuclear weapons program.

The best advice is that the US really has no good military options against Iran's nuclear program. And in any event, the US military is fully and exhaustively engaged in Iraq.

Bush administration figures insist that they want to halt Iran's nuclear weapons program by peaceful and diplomatic means. Yet it is impossible to ignore the continued drumbeat of tough administration statements about Iran and the dangers it poses.

The Bushes have a history of matching tough talk with tough action. This speech will certainly be analysed closely in Tehran.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bush; iran; iraq; iraqielection; sotu; stateoftheunion; staythecourse; stubborness; terror; tough

1 posted on 02/03/2005 3:40:42 PM PST by Cornpone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cornpone

"...the US military is fully and exhaustively engaged in Iraq."

Not entirely. We could lay waste to much of Iran from the air.


2 posted on 02/03/2005 3:51:24 PM PST by Kirkwood (Liberals gave the world "Rock the Vote." George W Bush gave the world "Iraq: The vote!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood

" ...The best advice is that the US really has no good military options against Iran's nuclear program. "

Um .. no.

If it was important, we could destroy it.


3 posted on 02/03/2005 3:55:22 PM PST by Blueflag (Res ipsa loquitor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood
"Not entirely. We could lay waste to much of Iran from the air."

I think we can do absolutely everything we need to accomplish from the air. The demonstrated ability to strike at will with impunity and without the need to use ground forces to achieve strategic objectives may be all that is necessary to push the current regime over the edge as long as there is no significant loss of life...but then I'm Air Force so I'm a little biased.

4 posted on 02/03/2005 3:56:18 PM PST by Cornpone (Aging Warrior -- Aim High -- Who Dares Wins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cornpone

Amen


5 posted on 02/03/2005 4:27:39 PM PST by bella1 (red county, blue state)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood

no need...Israel will take care of Iran....


6 posted on 02/03/2005 4:37:34 PM PST by scoastie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cornpone
"the US really has no good military options against Iran's nuclear program"

Oh yea?.....cover your ears very soon. Shalom

7 posted on 02/03/2005 4:52:40 PM PST by patriot_wes (When I see two guys kissin..argh! Is puking a hate crime yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cornpone
I think we can do absolutely everything we need to accomplish from the air.

No doubt. But the Iranians know, like everyone else does, that we really don't like to kill bunches of civilians and turn even more into refugees.
Hiding weapons in mosques, schools, hospitals, etc. deters us.

8 posted on 02/03/2005 5:57:06 PM PST by speekinout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: speekinout
"Hiding weapons in mosques, schools, hospitals, etc. deters us."

It would have to be one heck of a mosque, school or anything to hide a nuclear fuel reprocessing facility capable of making weapons grade material.

9 posted on 02/03/2005 5:59:27 PM PST by Cornpone (Aging Warrior -- Aim High -- Who Dares Wins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cornpone

Next door would be fine. They don't care about dangers to civilians, and it's hard to blow up one of those without collateral damage. The bomb could be accurate, but the damage isn't necessarily contained.


10 posted on 02/03/2005 6:07:42 PM PST by speekinout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson