Skip to comments.
Bush Doctrine, R.I.P.
Worldnet Daily ^
| 4/2/2003
| Pat Buchanan
Posted on 04/02/2003 3:30:39 PM PST by traditionalist
Militarily, this war on Iraq continues to go as well as any war in American history. Within the first three days, U.S. Marines and the 3rd Infantry had raced across the Iraqi desert to within 50 miles of Baghdad. The southern oil fields had been captured. Within a week, Umm Qasr, Iraq's window on the Gulf, and Basra, her second city, had been cut off. Special Forces had seized the airfields in the west. Two missiles had hit Kuwait, but with almost no casualties. Half a dozen others had been shot down by Patriots.
In the second week, U.S. airborne troops dropped into the north and secured a vital airfield above Mosul and began to move south with the Kurds toward the oil fields.
At this writing, not one U.S. combat plane be it a Stealth B-2 bomber, B-1B, B-52, F-117, F-16, F-15, F-14 or A-10 has been shot down. A few helicopters have been lost. When a drone was downed, basically a big model airplane, Baghdad celebrated.
U.S. dead are, at this writing, about three dozen. In the first battle of the Civil War at Bull Run, "The Confederates ... lost almost 2,000, but the Union army had lost more than 3,000; 387 were dead in gray, 481 in blue" the rest were wounded or captured. So writes Shelby Foote.
Those armies would fight for four years with 400 men dying every day, either to preserve the Union or to break free of it. Those losses were sustained by a nation with a population one-eighth of what it is today.
Iraqi war dead have also been few, especially when one compares this to what we did to Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In those German and Japanese cities, scores of thousands of women and children were bombed and burned to death in minutes.
Yet, on the propaganda and political fronts, America is not winning. Sunday's talk shows were consumed with the question of who underestimated Iraqi resistance and who underestimated the forces that would be needed to break the Republican Guard and take Baghdad.
FDR got less criticism for writing off thousands of soldiers and Marines on Bataan and Corregidor than have President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld and Gen. Tommy Franks for not having on hand enough troops to take Baghdad in 10 days.
The American people seem more mature than the talking heads about what will be needed to win. And if the United States can win this war in a month or six weeks still possible given the steady attrition of the Republican Guard and the Baghdad regime under U.S. bombing, and the buildup of men and armor around Baghdad what is being said now will not matter. Of greater concern is opinion in the Islamic world.
During Desert Storm, the "Arab Street" came out early, wildly denounced the United States and went home. "The Arab Street is a paper tiger" became the conventional wisdom. But demonstrations in Jordan, Egypt, Indonesia and Morocco have lately grown ominous. Anti-Americanism is rampant in the Gulf states. The Saudis have refused us permission to use their airspace for cruise-missile flights.
As the bombing of Baghdad grows more intense, and more bombs and missiles fall far from their targets and land on markets, malls, mosques, schools or hospitals, this is going to get worse. Nightly pictures on Al-Jazeera of Iraqi dead and wounded will even further inflame the Islamic world against the United States.
Can this go on for weeks, or months, without an explosion?
And what of the Bush Doctrine? If we had trouble finding allies when we were demanding that Saddam obey Security Council resolutions, where will we find them as that doctrine is applied to Iran and North Korea, which are under no U.N. resolutions?
If we need most of the U.S. Army and Marine Corps to defeat Iraq, where do we find the troops to invade Iran, which is three times as large and populous? Or North Korea, with its million-man army, hundreds of missiles and 13,000 artillery pieces on the DMZ? If we go marching to Pyongyang, there will be more than three dozen U.S. dead in the first two weeks.
Will Tony Blair be up for another war? Will our own elites and people be willing to go it alone, into one, two or three more wars on behalf of the Bush Doctrine, against the Axis of Evil, when what has been a successful war so far has so many wringing their hands?
Is America prepared to pay the price of empire? This has been the question from the beginning. Judging from the stunned reaction among our political and journalistic elites to the first resistance in a war that is going remarkably well, the answer is, "No."
TOPICS: General Discussion
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 next last
To: TopQuark
David Frum was right about Pat. Pat is talking out of both sides of his mouth. Handwringing and defeatism even amid victory.
Btw... we may not even have to invade Iran; just encourage the younger populace (maybe with a little support) to jettison the Ayatollahs.
21
posted on
04/02/2003 4:00:52 PM PST
by
UbIwerks
To: TheLooseThread
"Wow, this guys is talking on three or four fronts at the same time. Ok, he is mad about something, I got that."
He isn't mad, that really is the plan. Go to any search engine ard read about it by searching PNAC. If it could work it would be important to US security, but it is far reaching so it is hard to see how it will work. Who knows?
22
posted on
04/02/2003 4:02:41 PM PST
by
Theyknow
To: UbIwerks
You are right. And even in Syria we may find some movement if we are truly victorious.
23
posted on
04/02/2003 4:04:12 PM PST
by
TopQuark
To: traditionalist
And what of the Bush Doctrine?
I have wondered about this one.. It seems you're either: for us, against us or you're Saudi Arabia.
24
posted on
04/02/2003 4:04:37 PM PST
by
Jhoffa_
(Frodo sleeps with men...)
To: Jhoffa_
Our policy re: Saudi Arabia: Say "nice doggie" to them while we discreetly look for a big rock.
25
posted on
04/02/2003 4:09:07 PM PST
by
Poohbah
(Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
To: Poohbah
Wonder how Iraqi oil will change the Saudi equasion and opec?
26
posted on
04/02/2003 4:11:58 PM PST
by
Jhoffa_
(Frodo sleeps with men...)
To: dighton
LOL...makes a nice tag line.
27
posted on
04/02/2003 4:14:37 PM PST
by
KDD
("We're winning the war, all is lost.")
To: Wordsmith
drop this sentence in to kick off the very last paragraph. If you anywise his other articles on this dimension, you'll find consistency; that is his writing style.
He first not only presents --- he tries to overwhelm you with factual detail in order to establish his credibility. This always includes irrelevant and unnecessary information: witness the long list of our airplanes. Like a child, he tries to impress adults: "Look, I read the sentence to the very end; I know ALL of our airplanes."
Having lulled the reader, he then plugs in, in one short sentence, an idea that requires a great deal of justification and refinement. When justifying crusades, for instance, he lists some detailed information, and then says, "It was a just war. So was WWII" --- and moves on! I'd think any parallels between crusades and WWII are far from obvious.
His knowledge of history is like an uncooked stew: plenty of ingredients that have not come together. And his writing style reveals him for what he is -- a cheap, hateful provocateur.
28
posted on
04/02/2003 4:14:51 PM PST
by
TopQuark
To: traditionalist
"If we go marching to Pyongyang..."
PS: I don't think you can do that to a determined nuclear power..
That looks like a non-starter to me.
29
posted on
04/02/2003 4:15:22 PM PST
by
Jhoffa_
(Frodo sleeps with men...)
Comment #30 Removed by Moderator
To: traditionalist
Pat Buchanan, R.I.P.
To: DoughtyOne
Pat, on certain issues you're right on.And he has hit the bullseye on this as well.
Don't forget, PJB maintains that "The Amen Corner" intends to bring about regime change in nations other than Iraq. (Whose War?)
As it now stands, unless some of those nations attempt to intervene in a last ditch effort to save Saddam, Dubya will have his Iraqi victory, but not the justification for expansion into Iran, Syria, or whereever. Even Kim Jong-Il gets a pass if he stops his sabre-rattling.
To: TopQuark
Thanks, I didn't know it was a habit of his. You're right, you can learn a lot about how someone thinks by analyzing their writing style.
To: traditionalist
And what of the Bush Doctrine? If we had trouble finding allies when we were demanding that Saddam obey Security Council resolutions, where will we find them as that doctrine is applied to Iran and North Korea, which are under no U.N. resolutions?
What is the relationship between the Bush Doctrine, UN resolutions, and finding allies?? The Bush Doctrine said WE would wipe out terrorism.
34
posted on
04/02/2003 4:25:51 PM PST
by
gitmo
("The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain." GWB)
To: gcruse
You've got too many queens on that board!!!
35
posted on
04/02/2003 4:26:08 PM PST
by
plusone
To: traditionalist
Pat is usually right. Wonder if Pat is right that Bush will go wobbly on his Palestine State. Rice doesn't think so.
----------
|
US Says Roadmap 'Not Open for Negotiation' But Palestinians Still Skeptical |
|
Tuesday, April 01 2003 @ 09:49 PM GMT |
"They voiced their objections after Bush had said 'we will expect and welcome contributions from Israel and the Palestinians to this document.' .."
|
|
Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice |
WASHINGTON (PMC) - Washington said the stalled Middle East peace process has reached a hopeful moment, and that the so-called roadmap to peace is not open to negotiation, but again without committing itself to timetables or implementation mechanisms, which kept Palestinians skeptical that such statements are merely pain-relieving political tactics.
President George W. Bushs national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said Monday its roadmap for setting up a Palestinian state by the end of 2005 is not open to negotiation and that Israel must play its part to pave the way.
In a speech to the strongest pro-Israel lobby group in the USA, AIPAC, Rice also called on all Arab governments to recognize Israels right to exist and said democratic reforms within the Palestine National Authority (PNA) were extremely important.
The blueprint, prepared jointly with the European Union, the United Nations and Russia, is designed to reopen negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians once Mahmoud Abbas is confirmed as the Palestinian prime minister.
Rices call for a quick start, without attempts by either side to revise the terms of the roadmap, follows complaints by European and Arab governments that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon would try to arrange more favorable terms.
They voiced their objections after Bush had said we will expect and welcome contributions from Israel and the Palestinians to this document.
Secretary of State Colin Powell, and now Rice, in responding to questions at the 44th annual policy meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, tried to discourage delay.
Rice, who had asked that her remarks to thousands of members of the pro-Israel lobby be off-the-record to the news media, said of Israel and the Palestinians we expect their comments; it is not a matter of renegotiation.
It can be commented on by the parties, Rice added.
Rice said the US would present formally the international roadmap for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement once the new Palestinian PM, Mahmoud Abbas, was confirmed in office with his cabinet.
Bush envisages two states, democratic Israel and democratic Palestine, living side by side in peace.
Rice set out what she called the ambitious agenda of the US to bring about change in the Middle East, including a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
She called on Palestinians to end what she termed violence against Israel, but she also noted that Israel must end settlement activities while progress was being made towards peace.
Earlier, Powell was optimistic.
Today we have reached a hopeful moment, when progress may again be possible, he said late Sunday in Washington.
But he warned that the administration of President Bush would be watching very carefully how Abbas exercises his authority, which is so important for Palestinian hopes for better future.
Powell reiterated the promise by Washington and London to unveil the roadmap for peace as soon as Abbas and his cabinet are confirmed.
Moreover, Powell renewed his call for an end to expansion by Israeli settlers in the occupied Palestinian territory.
Settlement activity by Israel is inconsistent with President Bush's two-state vision, he said.
Sharons right-wing coalition includes two staunch pro-settlement parties, while many in his own Likud party also back them.
However, Americas non-commitment to a date for the publication of the roadmap and to timetables for its implementation led Palestinian chief negotiator and cabinet minister Saeb Erekat to slam the repeated delay.
It seems the delay in the peace process is in marked contrast to the immediate and final decision for a war on Iraq. The decision for war was not delayed, but the decision for peace has been delayed six times in four months, he said.
Erekat said on Saturday that President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blairs statements concerning the presentation of the US roadmap peace plan are just pain relieving.
Meanwhile, former US Secretary of State James Baker said Sunday that the roadmap should be implemented without conditions and urged Washington to call a meeting for the parties to discuss it.
He also said the US-led war on Iraq would give President Bush a wonderful opportunity to build a legacy for himself...that is to create a stable situation in the Middle East and resolve the ongoing dispute between Arabs and Israelis.
We need to say, 'This is the way to peace, here it is, put it on the table, and then call a meeting of the parties, he told ABC television.
However, Powell sounded as if he was adopting an Israeli position.
Israel, which has suggested more than 100 changes to the roadmap, refused to pass judgment on Abbas until he had proven his mettle by ending bloody attacks in Israel.
Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom saw the move as a positive step but on the other hand we have top see actions on the ground, said ministry spokesman David Saranga.
Shalom said Monday that the new Palestinian prime minister must take drastic measures against so-called radical groups in his first two months in office.
If Abbas does not take the right measures against terror when he comes to office in his first or second months, he won't be able to do it after it, Shalom said after a meeting with US Secretary of State Colin Powell.
I think it will be very important for him and for the future of the region that he will take those measures against the Hamas, the Islamic Jihad and other terrorist organizations while he come to office, he added.
Shalom said that Israel has nonetheless agreed it would be a positive step in the right direction if Abbas takes the job.
|
|
36
posted on
04/02/2003 4:26:14 PM PST
by
ex-snook
(American jobs needs balanced trade - WE BUY FROM YOU, YOU BUY FROM US)
To: Jhoffa_
Wonder how Iraqi oil will change the Saudi equasion and opec?"Here, Sheikh Yamani, stand over here on this rug while we yank it out from under you."
37
posted on
04/02/2003 4:28:02 PM PST
by
Poohbah
(Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
To: antaresequity
We can be glad that he wasn't elected to the Presidency!
38
posted on
04/02/2003 4:30:35 PM PST
by
dvan
To: traditionalist
Is America prepared to pay the price of empire?
What in the hell is this guy talking about? Empire??
But demonstrations in Jordan, Egypt, Indonesia and Morocco have lately grown ominous.
All that proves is that their chanting skills have improved. Go ahead. Let them get all jazzed up, give em some guns, and let them in mass (pleeez!)do an Islamist Banzi charge. We've got the tools to fix it.
As the bombing of Baghdad grows more intense, and more bombs and missiles fall far from their targets and land on markets, malls, mosques, schools or hospitals, this is going to get worse.
Well, Mr. Ishouldabeenpresident, on what evidence do you base this stretch of your imagination? Jeez! Don't you have a chicken farm or something where you can shovel this sht?
39
posted on
04/02/2003 4:30:56 PM PST
by
tbpiper
To: DoughtyOne
Good points. Pat seems really P.O.'d that the war is going so well for the coalition. So, he invents a straw man of a few mythical wars going bad to knock down.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson