Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

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 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last

1 posted on 04/02/2003 3:30:39 PM PST by traditionalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: traditionalist
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."

Yeah, but Bush didn't listen to the political and journalistic elites, when he went into Iraq. Why should we expect he will now?

2 posted on 04/02/2003 3:34:44 PM PST by Celtjew Libertarian (No more will we pretend that our desire/For liberty is number-cold and has no fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traditionalist
I love Buchanan's new found enthusiasm to leave American foreign policy in the hands of "world opinion." /sarcasm

Also, since when does the chattering class represent America?
3 posted on 04/02/2003 3:36:30 PM PST by Hobsonphile (Human nature can't be wished away by utopian dreams.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traditionalist
Wow, this guys is talking on three or four fronts at the same time. Ok, he is mad about something, I got that.
4 posted on 04/02/2003 3:36:31 PM PST by TheLooseThread
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traditionalist
Someone put Pat back on his medication please.

5 posted on 04/02/2003 3:37:15 PM PST by konaice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traditionalist
former nixon speechwriter continues to fight for reinstatement of his former boss.

dep

6 posted on 04/02/2003 3:37:45 PM PST by dep (baghdad before hdad bags us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traditionalist
Is America prepared to pay the price of empire?

And another question is, now that they have witnessed Iraq, are these rogue states willing to pay the price of not behaving in a civilized manner? After the destruction of one rogue regime who should be scared? Us, or the rogue states no matter how mean and dastardly?

Of course now, two of those rogue states, Iran and Syria, will no longer have an open communication. They will have US air bases, checkpoints, and patrols in between them. Their borders will have US troops across them. For at least a couple of years we will not be needing to ask any Middle Eastern countries for permission to base anything.

No, it might be time for these rogue states to seriously consider laying low for awhile.
7 posted on 04/02/2003 3:40:12 PM PST by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traditionalist
Is America prepared to pay the price of empire?

Fascinating that Buchanan can spend the whole body of the article with a reasonable, rational analysis of the Iraqi campaign and then drop this sentence in to kick off the very last paragraph. No lead in, nothing. I see this as indisputable proof that for Buchanan the belief that we are "empire building" is not a theory to be debated, but an a priori assumption on which to base all subsequent thought. It's a shame, because I'd love to hear him make the case for why he believes this is what is happening. For example, how does he define empire? Oh well. He could've been a contender.

8 posted on 04/02/2003 3:43:01 PM PST by Wordsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traditionalist
Pat's opinions are clouded by his poorly hidden racism.
9 posted on 04/02/2003 3:43:14 PM PST by tuckrdout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus; general_re; BlueLancer; Poohbah; Chancellor Palpatine
"We're winning the war, all is lost."
10 posted on 04/02/2003 3:44:21 PM PST by dighton (Amen-Corner Hatchet Team, Nasty Little Clique, Vulgar Horde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian
Standard Buchanan isolationist policy. Nothing new here. Move on.
11 posted on 04/02/2003 3:44:51 PM PST by MCH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dighton
Someone tell this bloviating blowhard that his 15 minutes were up in 1992...
12 posted on 04/02/2003 3:45:18 PM PST by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: traditionalist
I vote for the Daschele treatment with Pat...SHUT UP, PAT.
13 posted on 04/02/2003 3:45:20 PM PST by Keith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traditionalist
In the context of Buchanan's policy that sees the United States staying out of every war until it is attacked, this is par for the course.  Nobody should really be surprised.

I will take exception to several comments.  The first is the idea that this has gone as well as any other war.  Pat, this war is in a league by itself.  Get over it.

Next I'd like to address the need for allies.  Tell me Pat, what allies are we using today that you think don't see global problems in the same light we do?  The Brits and the Aussies know what terrorism is.  They know they don't want third world nations to have nuclear weapons.  The see North Korea and Iran for what they are.  If the time comes when we need to take action, these two nations can be counted on.  If you don't know that by now, you won't know it ever.

Next let's address the Arab street.  Tell us how that Arab street will react when Iraqi citizens fall at the feet of the United States thanking it profusely?  Iraqi nationals are already taking up arms against Hussein's troops.  They are already telling us where our POWs are and who the local Hussein henchmen are.  Any questions?

Pat, on certain issues you're right on.  When it comes to the middle-east you make a great Martian.

Please Pat, wait until a policy comes up that you have a clue on, before taking pen in hand.

14 posted on 04/02/2003 3:48:04 PM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traditionalist
If what he is saying is that the world is full of wimps, suckasses and fools, I would agree with Pat.

But his conclusion that that will somehow prevent America from ridding the world of state-sponsored terrorists who vow our destruction is wrong.

Pat, America will destroy them one by one unless they change their tune.

Americans live free or die.

15 posted on 04/02/2003 3:50:37 PM PST by Enduring Freedom (To smash the ugly face of Socialism is our mission)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traditionalist
I really have grown to dislike Pat
16 posted on 04/02/2003 3:51:28 PM PST by antaresequity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hobsonphile
Exactly. Although coming from a different starting point, he is now at the same place with the Left: he can't wait for us to have more losses so that he can say, "I told you so."

I did not sense any worry or disappointment in his "reportinhg" on the neagitve attitude of the Arab Street: he is almost salivating.

It's amazing how narrow the mind filled with hatred becomes.

17 posted on 04/02/2003 3:52:37 PM PST by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: traditionalist
Pat's credibility has sunk as low as the French Hens and Madonna.
18 posted on 04/02/2003 3:54:59 PM PST by johnfl61
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheLooseThread
Ok, he is mad about something, I got that.

I think you could have stopped at "Ok, he is mad." ;-)

19 posted on 04/02/2003 3:55:34 PM PST by SubMareener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: traditionalist
Bush doctrine=



B-2 , B-1B, B-52, F-117, F-16, F-15, F-14, A-10

              Result, Black loses all his men.

20 posted on 04/02/2003 3:57:12 PM PST by gcruse (If they truly are God's laws, he can enforce them himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-68 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson