Replies

[...Who is in the better position to crush Al Qaeda, ultimately, a US with NO allies in the region, or one that has good relations with a few nations there, which can serve as examples?...]

I like the way you are thinking. Bush has been misunderestimated his entire administration. I'm hoping this is another brilliant move in his big game. We won't know and he has no apologists... except us. If we could decypher the Bush code that gets him around the MSM, we could figure out what he's doing.

I tried to research the port management specialists and didn't find much. I don't know the "insider" language.

I'm trying to think from the goal backward, as opposed to the method forward. The goal is a peaceful region with the US a strong presence in that part of the world, though in a post-WW2 Eastern Europe caretaker role as opposed to an occupying army role. I am not ready to just say "He's my President, he's got some reason for this," but Bush does nothing for no reason, and certainly not just to play nice. His contempt for the UN is blindingly obvious because he thinks he can do the job better--NOT in terms of being a worldwide peacemaker (I don't think he's impressed with that one of his father's interests)but in positioning the US so our security is as assured as can be.

The man who, after we took Afghanistan, looked at the globe and knew the war wasn't over but had barely begun, is not someone who's going to hand over anything to a foreign power just to play nice. Bush looked at the Middle East, I believe the evidence shows, and thought, This clash is coming whether we want it to or not; do we do it on our terms or on theirs? Do we wait for a nuke or another 9-11, and admit to what we know NOW, or do we take the fight to the enemy?

People seem to forget something about the Iraq invasion (they forget a lot of things, but anyway): Sure, Cheney was incorrect in saying we would be welcomed with open arms, but his and Bush's critics seem to forget how very wrong THEY were about The "Arab Street". Remember those stories after we took Baghdad (which a certain democrat candidate said would take one year and at least 5000 US dead) about how depressed Arab men were because we took down "the Elite Republican Guard" so easily? That's because the Middle East is both more complex and more subtle than many Americans know, or want to believe.

It's a game. A dangerous one, but a game. How will it be won--by us basically admitting we think all those Arabs are alike and we will kill them all and that's it? (Isn't that called genocide?) Or do we live on the planet Earth and deal with those who can be dealt with using the currency they understand...namely, uh, currency. Business. What is the Middle East without all that oil? And do all those countries have the same interests?

Tell me which scenario is more likely: The Middle East, minus Israel, is united against the US and tries to destroy us because they all hate us, every one of them (I'll ask my Iraqi housemate about that, and the Chinese one, too--once they're done with their English courses and their nights on the town)? Or that the Middle East has inter-national interests IN the Middle East, and is not completely US-focused, and would rather make money than blow up one of its best sources of income and in turn get blown up?

Just some thoughts, but I think Bush is playing a longterm game here. I suppose after WW2 we stopped trading with Germany, Japan and Italy, but I wasn't around so I can't comment. But those three nations aren't exactly considered nuclear threats to us, now are they?