Posted on 11/25/2006 6:44:31 AM PST by Dark Skies
But what of the long term?
Having defeated the US in Iraq and Israel all over the place, does the enemy rest?
Worse is coming. When?
I don't think Syria and Iran could stop the slide into chaos even if they wanted to. Syria isn't run by Sunnis in any event (Assad is an Alawaite, which is some Shia sect), so it is not like each side has a sponsor. So if the face saving exit strategy is to create some temporary reduction in the violence, while the US leaves, I doubt that will happen, and there will be no saving of face.
I will continue to read this article because I like Glick, but (and I know it makes no difference because perception is everything) the President did not fire Rumsfeld. He resigned. I believe he resigned and am not spinning the situation. He had tried to do so two other times, but the President would not let him. So, while I know that Glick is not that fond of the President (at least in the articles she writes), let's not accuse him of things he did not do.
They are the oxygen that feeds the fire. Without, it may burn for a while only.
Iraq could have been a success- maybe- if immediately after the initial victory Iran and Syria and others has been put on notice. With a stick ready to be used on the violators.
See if you can find video of the announcement and look at Rumsfeld's body language and then tell me again that he went of his own will.
The enemy never rests, no matter what happens. As long as the Arab world (and some other places like Pakistan) is an economic failure (and clipping oil coupons where there is oil is not the same as creating a productive economy), there will be plenty of new jihadists. One little problem with fundamentalist Islam is that it makes economic productivity more difficult in so many ways. Where is Calvin when you need him?
Continuing with the article. Glick's resentment toward Baker is absolutely justified. This man is not a friend to Israel and has never been. I wish he would just go away. I am very worried to have him in the mix.
I agree that Europe has abandoned Israel, but this is not a recent development. Official abandoment happened in 1922.
I wasn't inferring the breeding of individual jihadists. But the distabilization of....your Anglophile friend, the little king, for example.
The "little king" is the bionic man, of the bionic family. I am amazed they have lasted as long as they have.
I'm not saying that Glick is wrong. I think she writes very well and is very knowledgeable on the subject. But, I have a tendency to stop listening when she thinks that the President does not see the same things she does.
I am a strong supporter of the President, but not in his Israeli policy. I think he follows the State Department's Arabists too much, and they follow Europe.
But, if the President pulls out of Iraq before that govenrment is fully established and able to stand on its own against its enemies (both internal and external), then he will lose my respect. I do not believe he is doing that, nor do I believe he will do so.
I think his understanding of the region and its politics is a lot deeper and more fully realized than Glick and some will give him credit for.
They have Israel to thank. Over and over again.
Now Israel may not even be able to save themselves.
He has two years. If he doesn't pull out, just runs out the clock, without pushing forward, while Americans bleed and die, would that be better?
Would you think better of him if he leaves- at best- the status quo to the next President?
Isn't the issue not so much as to whether or not Rumsfeld was pushed out the door, but rather whether his exit (self chosen or not) was associated with a change of administration policy? If Rumsfeld "chose" to go, perhaps it was because he did not agree with the change.
Another case of thinking western and acting in the muslim east.
I believe the president expected Syria and the region to react to the invasion like rational western states - to back off lest they be next. Unfortunately, they don't think like that and without specific notice they went ahead and flanked us.
We still carry the ball and can own the field but I'd bet the next year brings on a frantic round of defeat gaining.
Deja Vu as a policy.
The answer my friend is in the replacement, Gates.
I enjoy your posts very much. Both in passion and in knowledge. But, I do think you are biased against the President and it colors your posts.
I do not think he is running out the clock. I think we're fighting to establish that government so it can stand on its own two feet. I believe he is committed to that. I will wait to see if that committment falters or fail first before I throw up my hands as if it is a done deal because people in the media have already done so.
Such stupidity should be an impeachable offense.
Maybe, he thought at 76, that he didn't want to have to do battle every day with the likes of Rangel and Waxman.
Maybe, this man, who does not suffer fools lightly, just wore out against having to continually talk to idiots who do not grasp what happened on 9/11.
I guess we will have to wait for his book. Should be a humdinger, don't you think?
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.