Posted on 09/27/2001 9:09:59 AM PDT by ex-snook
Whose War Is This? By Patrick J. Buchanan
In his resolve to hunt down and kill the Osama bin Laden terrorists he says committed the Sept. 11 massacres, President Bush has behind him a nation more unified than it has been since Pearl Harbor. But now Bush has been put on notice that this war cannot end with the head of bin Laden and the overthrow of the Taliban.
The shot across Bush's bow came in an "Open Letter" co-signed by 41 foreign-policy scholars, including William Bennett, Jeane Kirkpatrick, the publisher of The Weekly Standard and the editor in chief of The New Republic — essentially, the entire neoconservative establishment.
What must Bush do to retain their support? Target Hezbollah for destruction and retaliate against Syria and Iran if they refuse to cut all ties to Hezbollah and move militarily to overthrow Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Failure to attack Iraq, the neocons warn Bush, "will consti tute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism."
"Our purpose in writing is to assure you of our support as you do what must be done to lead the nation to victory in this fight," the letter ends.
Implied is a threat to end support if Bush does not widen the war to include all of Israel's enemies, or if he pursues the U.S.-Arab-Muslim coalition of Secretary of State Colin Powell. Among the signers is Richard Perle, chairman of Bush's own Defense Policy Board, a key advisory group.
This letter represents one side of a brutal policy battle that has erupted in the capital: Is it to be Powell's war or Perle's war?
A critical decision
The final decision Bush makes will be as historically crucial as Truman's decision to let MacArthur advance to the Yalu, and FDR's decision to hold up Eisenhower's armies and let Stalin take Berlin.
How the president will come down is unknown.
In his address to Congress a week ago, Bush declared: "From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." The president seemed to be offering amnesty, or conditional absolution, to rogue states if they enlist in America's war, now, and expel all terrorist cells.
Even Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is signaling that what matters is not where nations stood, but where they stand. On Sunday, he said on CBS: "What we are looking at today is how are these states going to behave going forward."
And Powell's coalition is coming together. Whether out of fear or opportunism, Libya, Syria, Iran and the Palestinian Authority have all denounced the atrocities of Sept. 11. Pakistan has joined the coalition. Sudan is cooperating.
But calls for a wider war dominate the neoconservative media. The Weekly Standard's opinion editor, David Tell, wants war not only on past sponsors of terror, but also on "any group or government inclined to support or sustain others like them in the future."
Bennett wants Congress to declare war on "militant Islam" and "overwhelming force" used on state sponsors of terror such as Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran and even China. The Wall Street Journal wants strikes "aimed at terrorist camps in Syria, Sudan, Libya and Algeria, and perhaps even in parts of Egypt."
On their lists
Terrorism expert Steve Emerson puts Lebanon's Bekaa Valley at the top of his list. Benjamin Netanyahu includes in the "Empire of Terror" to be obliterated: Hamas, Hezbollah, "the Palestinian enclave," as well as Iran, Iraq and Taliban Afghanistan. Tom Donnelly and Gary Schmitt of the Project for the New American Century want Iraq invaded now: "Nor need the attack await the deployment of half a million troops. ... The larger challenge will be occupying Iraq after the fighting is over."
As of now, Bush is laser-focused on bin Laden and the Taliban. But when that war is over, the great policy battle will be decided: Do we then dynamite Powell's U.S.-Arab-Muslim coalition by using U.S. power to invade Iraq? Do we then reverse alliances and make Israel's war America's war?
Allies would be at risk
If the United States invades Iraq, bombs Hezbollah and conducts strikes on Syria and Iran, this war will metastasize into a two-continent war from Algeria to Afghanistan, with the United States and Israel alone against a half-dozen Arab and Muslim states. The first casualties would be the moderate Arabs — Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states — who were our Cold War and Gulf War allies.
The war Netanyahu and the neo cons want, with the United States and Israel fighting all of the radical Islamic states, is the war bin Laden wants, the war his murderers hoped to ignite when they sent those airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
If America wishes truly to be isolated, it will follow the neoconservative line. Conservatives should stand squarely with President Bush — and Gen. Powell.
hmmm. Does that mean the Neocons will now start whispering that Dubya is soft-on-Nazis if he doesn't shape up and obey them?
Get with it. Neocons want something Really Important to spice up their lives and to secure their place in History. Taking out the terrorist bands who are attacking us simply isn't Big Enough. Igniting a Crusade against all of Islam to defend the glories of democratic capitalism should just about fit the bill.
You may now return to your smearing.
If that happens, we will then deal with what we surely would get with indiscriminate killing of civilians. Vengeance is a dish best eaten cold. We don't want to ignite a global war by acting rashly if we can avoid one. I tend to wonder if some neocons share that view.
Then why do all you Pat haters bother to comment?
I'm not a "Pat Hater". I agreed with many of the things Buchanan had to say about the culture war, immigration, abortion, the second amendment, and a fortress American strategy.
However, his stuff about Hitler came awful close to an apologia for Nazism. I don't like it when liberals apologize or rationalize for communism either.
The 2000 campaign, in which Pat received a $12,000,000 gift from the taxpayer, was the final straw for me, and many others sympathetic, but not committed to the man.
Buchanan's whining that his pathetic 0.5% showing in the popular vote was due to a media and debate freeze-out has some validity, but even his counterpart on the left, Nader managed 4%.
The American people made the only judgement that counts about Buchanan last November. Pat's quixotic campaigns for President were totally about enriching his coffers and bloating his ego. The man may be a good pundit, but he would make an awful leader.
Only the cult of personality types can't see this now.
Unlike anyone else with a public pen, Pat succinctly defines once and for all the differences in what is believed to be American "Conservative" agendas. It is obvious that the predominant voices among FREEPERS are those of the "NEO-CONSERVATIVES." It is NEO-CONSERVATIVES who are in staunch support of Israel and on record as being the most vociferous in weapon-rattling assertions, in advocating to take on militarily all of Israel's enemies - and in most vehement opposition to the PALEO-Conservative position, that would oppose such Israel-favoring reaction to the recent terrorist actions. - And Pat Buchanan represents this "paleo - classical" form of CONSERVATISM, which focuses on primary AMERICAN INTERESTS. For this reason NEO-Conservatives are the ones who during the last presidential campaign proclaimed " Pat Buchanan as -- "UN-ELECTABLE!!!" A term by its intent so outrageous that it is in conflict with the very roots of our American system, a term of the most UNDEMOCRATIC and un-fit definition in a free society, regardless whether or not Buchanan would have met my or anyone's standards as a candidate. But never before has the term "UN-ELECTABLE" pre-empted a national campaign. The proclamation of "UN-ELECTABILITY" needs the strongest scrutiny: by WHOSE standards, WHO decides what qualifies "electability !?" I have yet to see NEO-CONSERVATIVES being challenged on this outrageous label - a methodology designed to simply de-qualify a candidate in a system that is designed to let the Nations' People make such decisions - and not a handful of political strategists. Such lack of scrutiny is just one more symptom of our MAINSTREAM MEDIA representing NEO-CONSERVATIVE interests.
The opening article clearly states Pat Buchanan's PALEO-CONSERVATIVE opposition to Israel's cause and effect on our foreign policy, he explains the international hatred that has been triggered by US NEO-CONSERVATIVES' support of the JEWISH STATE and Zionism in general. And this article clearly explains the reason of NEO-Conservatives' passionate rejection of Buchanan - and his PALEO-CONSERVATIVE agenda.
Translation: We are (if we follow sinkspur's advice) going to multiply the tragedy of 9-11 by having thousands of American boys coming home in boxes in order to attempt to make the world safe for the Israelis. No thanks.
Brigadier
Brigadier
I believe Buchanan is wrong here, Powell is wrong, Bush is thus far wrong. I believe Wolfowitz and Netanyahu are right.
Saddam and Iraq must be dealt with as the enemy they are.
Conservatives like Novak seem content to let Saddam become more deadly. Is Robert Novak partially Iraqi or just being stupidly naive.
Had Bush Sr. allowed US Troops to dispose of Saddam he would have gotten this vote, which instead was wasted on Perot.
Pat is for America first, last and only and for that he is demonized as anti-semitic.
Basically wars really end when (1) The entire enemy population(s) is/are destroyed, or (2)When countries are occupied by the victors. It would be complete insanity for America to try either with the entire billion people who claim to be Islamic.
Attacking people who are no part of a problem will not work. That's what the terrorists did on September 11, and the entire US is now against their cause.
We must protect ourselves, then find political, economic, and other means prevent more recruits for international jihad causes around the world. There must be a universal rule of law where all governments will not allow terrorism and will diligently cooperate with the rest of the world to eliminate it.
War is a means, not an end. If we can achieve the same results through diplomacy and limited, covert engagements, so be it. My only fear, however, is that we will change our end objectives in order to avoid war at any cost. This is what happened at Munich, and it served only to postpone a far worse conflict.
Yes, if the world were so simple. Just one little detail, do you remember Iraq Iran war? It would be nice to put all those Baath secularists, Saudi Wahabites, Iranian Shiites and Sunni Taleban in one bag. Also Afgan, Persians are all Arabs, aren't they? And turbanned Sikhs should be punished too, do not think so?
He seems further to reduce the issue to two options, either a limited "Get binLaden and AlQeida' position, or a broad-brush "Get international terrorism the world over start a World religious War." And, simplistically, nothing in between.
This is always Buchanan's failing: a static, black-and-white world view with definite answers independent of the flow of subsequent events.
In fact, the equation changes daily. Right now, the tide is being taken at the flood through the visible leadership of Bush, and the world's perception of America's awesome potential being stirred in wrath.
Why else would all these cheesy Mideast dictators be falling all over themselves to kiss up to the U.S.? They believe George Bush means it. They know he's no candy-ass BillyBoy, and suspect he might just be Reagan II.
And they believe he won't be as genteel as his father was. Sharon, for example, got introduced to Texas plain talk just today. If GW talks like that to our friends, how do you think he comes across to craven on-the-fence cowards like the satraps of Syria and Sudan and the rest? Why do you think Saudi's suddenly collapsed and welcomed us back to our command center on Saudi soil after posturing in opposition for a short time?
Point is, the editors of opinion mags are irrelevant to GW, and Buchanan's reference to them as if they were a force reflects only his own limited pundit worldview. Bush is on the world stage creating history before our eyes, and Pat can't see it--he's too busy worrying about what little Billy Kristol thinks.
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.