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

Skip to comments.

Uncle Sam: Jekyll or Hyde?
Newsweek ^ | June 6 issue | Fareed Zakaria

Posted on 05/31/2005 1:44:36 PM PDT by echoBoomer

Zakaria: I think that the Bush administration has a Jekyll-and-Hyde problem—a contradictory attitude toward the war on terror. On the one hand it has wholeheartedly embraced the view that America must change its image in the Muslim world. It wants to stop being seen as the supporter of Muslim tyrants and instead become the champion of Muslim freedoms. President Bush and his secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, are transforming American policy in this realm, and while some of the implementation has been spotty, the general thrust is clear and laudable. For this they deserve more credit than they have generally been given, perhaps because of the polarization of politics these days, perhaps because the topic inevitably gets mixed up with the botched occupation of Iraq.

advertisement But while Dr. Jekyll makes speeches by day on Arab liberty, some nights he turns into Mr. Hyde. There is within the Bush administration another impulse, a warrior ethos that believes in beating up bad guys without much regard for such niceties as international law. Excessive concern for such matters would be a sign of weakness, the kind of thing liberals do. Men like Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld see themselves above all else as tough guys...

(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; Miscellaneous; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bush; hyde; jekyll; ussoldiers; zakaria
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

1 posted on 05/31/2005 1:44:37 PM PDT by echoBoomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: echoBoomer

Who cares what NewsWeak thinks???


2 posted on 05/31/2005 1:49:26 PM PDT by cweese (Hook 'em Horns!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: echoBoomer
And Newsweek is still available. After all the lies and help for the terrorist I do not know how they survive. Boycott the terrorist supporters at Newsweek and their advertisers.
3 posted on 05/31/2005 1:50:41 PM PDT by YOUGOTIT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: echoBoomer

What's your opinion of this article?


4 posted on 05/31/2005 1:51:07 PM PDT by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: echoBoomer

Uh, Fareed? We don't WANT to play Mr. Nice Guy. We want to WIN.

1. Be feared!

3. Do not be afraid to be powerful. Cold War-era gambits of proportionate response and dialog may have some utility in dealing with practical terrorists, but they are counter-productive in dealing with apocalyptic terrorists. Our great strengths are wealth and raw power. When we fail to bring those strengths to bear, we contribute to our own defeat. For a superpower to think small, which has been our habit across the last decade, at least, is self-defeating folly. Our responses to terrorist acts should make the world gasp!

4. Speak bluntly. Euphemisms are interpreted as weakness by our enemies and mislead the American people. Speak of killing terrorists and destroying their organizations. Timid speech leads to timid actions. Explain when necessary, but do not apologize. Expressions of regret are never seen as a mark of decency by terrorists or their supporters, but only as a sign that our will is faltering. Blame the terrorists as the root cause whenever operations have unintended negative consequences. Never go on the rhetorical defensive.

8. Maintain resolve. Especially in the Middle East and Central Asia, experts and diplomats will always present you with a multitude of good reasons for doing nothing, or for doing too little (or for doing exactly the wrong thing). Fight as hard as you can within the system to prevent diplomats from gaining influence over the strategic campaign. Although their intentions are often good, our diplomats and their obsolete strategic views are the terrorist's unwitting allies and diplomats are extremely jealous of military success and military authority in their region (where their expertise is never as deep or subtle as they believe it to be). Beyond the problem with our diplomats, the broader forces of bureaucratic entropy are an internal threat. The counter-terrorist campaign must be not only resolute, but constantly self-rejuvenating in ideas, techniques, military and inter-agency combinations, and sheer energy. Old hands must be stimulated constantly by new ideas.

9. When in doubt, hit harder than you think necessary. Success will be forgiven. Even the best-intentioned failure will not. When military force is used against terrorist networks, it should be used with such power that it stuns even our allies. We must get over our cowardice in means. While small-scale raids and other knifepoint operations are useful against individual targets, broader operations should be overwhelming. Of course, targeting limitations may inhibit some efforts but whenever possible, maximum force should be used in simultaneous operations at the very beginning of a campaign. Do not hesitate to supplement initial target lists with extensive bombing attacks on nothing if they can increase the initial psychological impact. Demonstrate power whenever you can. Show; don't tell!

10. Whenever legal conditions permit, kill terrorists on the spot (do not give them a chance to surrender, if you can help it). Contrary to academic wisdom, the surest way to make a martyr of a terrorist is to capture, convict and imprison him, leading to endless efforts by sympathizers to stage kidnappings, hijacking and other events intended to liberate the imprisoned terrorist(s). This is war, not law enforcement.

11. Never listen to those who warn that ferocity on our part reduces us to the level of the terrorists. That is the argument of the campus, not of the battlefield, and it insults America's service members and the American people. Historically, we have proven, time after time, that we can do a tough, dirty job for our country without any damage to our nation's moral fabric (Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not interfere with American democracy, values or behavior).

12. Spare and protect innocent civilians whenever possible, but: do not let the prospect of civilian casualties interfere with ultimate mission accomplishment. This is a fight to protect the American people, and we must do so whatever the cost, or the price in American lives may be devastating. In a choice between them, and us the choice is always us.

15. Don't flinch. If an operation goes awry and friendly casualties are unexpectedly high, immediately bolster morale and the military's image by striking back swiftly in a manner that inflicts the maximum possible number of casualties on the enemy and his supporters. Hit back as graphically as possible to impress upon the local and regional players that you weren't badly hurt or deterred in the least.

18. If the terrorists hide, strike what they hold dear, using clandestine means and, whenever possible, foreign agents to provoke them to break cover and react. Do not be squeamish. Your enemy is not. Subtlety is not superpower strength but the raw power to do that, which is necessary, is our great advantage. We forget that, while the world may happily chide or accuse us-or complain of our inhumanity-no one can stop us if we maintain our strength of will. Much of the world will complain no matter what we do. Hatred of America is the default position of failed individuals and failing states around the world, in every civilization, and there is nothing we can do to change their minds. We refuse to understand how much of humanity will find excuses for evil, so long as the evil strikes those who are more successful than the apologists themselves. This is as true of American academics, whose eagerness to declare our military efforts a failure is unflagging, or European clerics, who still cannot forgive America's magnanimity at the end of World War II, as it is of unemployed Egyptians or Pakistanis. The psychologically marginalized are at least as dangerous as the physically deprived.

21. Impress upon the minds of terrorists and potential terrorists everywhere, and upon the populations and governments inclined to support them, that American retaliation will be powerful and uncompromising. You will never deter fanatics, but you can frighten those who might support, harbor or attempt to use terrorists for their own ends. Our basic task in the world today is to restore a sense of American power, capabilities and resolve. We must be hard, or we will be struck wherever we are soft. It is folly for charity to precede victory. First win, then unclench your fist.

22. Do everything possible to make terrorists and their active supporters live in terror themselves. Turn the tide psychologically and practically. While this will not deter hard-core apocalyptic terrorists, it will dissipate their energies as they try to defend themselves and fear will deter many less-committed supporters of terror. Do not be distracted by the baggage of the term assassination. This is a war. The enemy, whether a hijacker or a financier, violates the laws of war by his refusal to wear a uniform and by purposely targeting civilians. He is by definition a war criminal. On our soil, he is either a spy or a saboteur, and not entitled to the protections of the U.S. Constitution. Those who abet terrorists must grow afraid to turn out the lights to go to sleep.

--Ralph Peters

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1223819/posts


5 posted on 05/31/2005 1:52:52 PM PDT by Choose Ye This Day (Somos un país soberano en una época de guerra. ¿Por qué no podemos defender nuestra frontera?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cweese

It's a signed op-ed piece, not an article, and a pretty good one.


6 posted on 05/31/2005 1:53:03 PM PDT by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JeanS

Echo Boomer appears to only read the left wing mediot stuff like Newsweak, Washington Compost and other left wing pr pseudo news organizations.

It posts and never responds to questions like yours, "What's your opinion of this article?"

For a newbie, since early May, it has posted a lot of stuff from left wing sites.


7 posted on 05/31/2005 1:57:05 PM PDT by Grampa Dave (The MSM has been a WMD, Weapon of Mass Disinformation for the Rats for at least 5 decades.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user
It's a signed op-ed piece, not an article, and a pretty good one.

I'm the one who called it an article, not cweese.

As far as I'm concerned, it's ok to call an op-ed or commentary an "article". Sheesh.

8 posted on 05/31/2005 1:57:30 PM PDT by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user

Yes, the article is not at all anti-American, but points out the very real political costs of some decisions that have been made.


9 posted on 05/31/2005 1:58:49 PM PDT by wotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
What's your opinion of this article?

I know this was not addressed to me but I think it is basically a hit piece on Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield but couched as a semi objective concern for the difficulty of fighting a non conventional and ruthless enemy by Geneva Convention rules, an obvious mistaken idea.

10 posted on 05/31/2005 2:03:10 PM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not everything that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: echoBoomer

Like what Newsweak says matters! Unless you're Muslim!


11 posted on 05/31/2005 2:04:55 PM PDT by Road Warrior ‘04 (Kill 'em til they're dead! Then, kill 'em again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: echoBoomer

So this is a reminder when China went Communist after not supporting Chiang Kai Chek then Washington asked 'Who lost China'?


12 posted on 05/31/2005 2:04:58 PM PDT by ex-snook (Exporting jobs and the money to buy America is lose-lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YOUGOTIT

from article's opening salvo:

" It wants to stop being seen as the supporter of Muslim tyrants and instead become the champion of Muslim freedoms."

an interesting offering of the old apples/oranges dale carnegie tactic, yes?


13 posted on 05/31/2005 2:10:05 PM PDT by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: echoBoomer

Newsweek...Newspeak


14 posted on 05/31/2005 2:12:22 PM PDT by joesnuffy (Taglines often reveal a lot about the inner person...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
Dr. Jekyll needs to explain this to Mr. Cheney, I mean Mr. Hyde.

Hit piece? Nah, that's just constructive criticism.

15 posted on 05/31/2005 2:13:11 PM PDT by Choose Ye This Day (Somos un país soberano en una época de guerra. ¿Por qué no podemos defender nuestra frontera?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Choose Ye This Day

Just another cute liberal compassionate tongue in cheek comment, huh?


16 posted on 05/31/2005 2:17:17 PM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not everything that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: echoBoomer

At least with Dr. Jeckel, half the time your good. With Islam its all Mr. Hyde!


17 posted on 05/31/2005 2:18:10 PM PDT by Bommer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot

I think next week's column compares Rumsfeld to Godzilla.


18 posted on 05/31/2005 2:19:00 PM PDT by Choose Ye This Day (Somos un país soberano en una época de guerra. ¿Por qué no podemos defender nuestra frontera?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: echoBoomer
the Geneva Convention needs to be updated to account for the modern realities of war.

Un-uniformed combatants should be executed when captured, without trial.

A city which harbors terrorists loses all of it's protections and is treated as if everyone in it is an enemy combatant.

Proportional response is scraped altogether as a recommended way of conducting war. Nations have a right to respond with any and all overwhelming force they deem necessary to respond to an enemy attack including nuclear.

I can think of a lot more, but that's a good start.
19 posted on 05/31/2005 2:24:57 PM PDT by Nyboe ( if rich democrats really want the rich to be taxed more ... then by all means TAX RICH DEMOCRATS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: echoBoomer
There is within the Bush administration another impulse, a warrior ethos that believes in beating up bad guys without much regard for such niceties as international law.

I wouldn't characterize that as "Mr. Hyde." The French call that being a "cowboy." I call it rational behavior. It is consideration after its own fashion - for a very long time the bad guys, and they're very real, have operated under the assurance that they could get away with essentially anything as long as they could play the UN and the international press like a cheap violin. It is, predictably, the bad guys and the UN and the international press who are loudest in outrage that those rules have been changed. Tough.

20 posted on 05/31/2005 2:26:29 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

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