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'.
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.