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.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3bb15ee646fb.htm
The threat of terrorism can't be eradicated, because terrorists grow out of ordinary people. America can't control a billion muslims, and in an attempt to do so may create millions of more terrorists. America can, however, minimize the threat of terrorism.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3bb15ee646fb.htm
Is the nuclear threat that real? According to Ritter, Absolutely not. We could have our weapons inspectors back in Iraq today if we wanted to.
Despite what some people here are saying, we do have the means to deal with a billion enemies.
Define "everyone". Neocons, Neoliberals, and Liberals bashed Buchanan. No true conservative "bashed" Buchanan. They may have cut-and-ran and/or "distanced" themselves from Buchanan's unvarnished truth-telling but they didn't "bash". Neocons, more than Liberals even, were behind the Smear Buchanan campaign. Period.
Pat's washed up and done for. He has no following of any real depth and stature. None. I haven't seen Pat on TV at all since this crisis began. Ditto for Wellstone. I guess the serious leftists have left the field.
Funny how you are talking about them wanting to fight you whereas it's you who are talking about going there and fighting them. It pays to sort out who your enemies are first, and why. Before saying "if you are not with us, you are against us". That's the slogan the Bolsheviks used to slaughter millions of "enemies of the peple".
Despite what some people here are saying, we do have the means to deal with a billion enemies.
Do you really want to declare a billion people your enemies? I think this is exactly what the terrorists wanted.
Not completely, but they will try. Arafat won't even try, and he has promised to. You bet there is no comparison, that is my point.
On the other hand, I'm not willing to declare a billion people our "friends" either. I live in New York. I saw with my own eyes what they did here. And I will stay, even though I know these same people would love nothing more than to nuke us or hit us with a bio/chem attack.
Given the risks involved (the lives of millions of Americans), I expect people to prove their friendship and goodwill toward us. If they are unwilling or unable to do that, then they are--as our President has said--our enemies.
Pretty clear, I think.
You do err, my friend, if you think it is in the U.S. interests or desires to eliminate the "current regime" in Iraq. We only want to eliminate Saddam, but leave his regime in power (which are Sunni Moslem, spelled correctly?). It would be suicide to allow Saddam's opposition to gain power (the Shiites, which comprise approximately 60% of the Iraqi population), because they are the same Islamic fundamental extremists that we are currently waging a war of terror on.
Most Americans misunderstand this hypocritical stance of our Government. Saddam must go, not because he represents a true threat to national security, but because our Govt. sold him as the devil to the American public for war propaganda. Now, that our "incomplete" war is completed; how do we return things to normal so long as the devil remains?
Again, we don't want a change in the status quo in Iraq, just a change in who sits at the head of the table. Then we can get back to what really matters; buying Iraq's oil.
You forget that there are declared American enemies, like Iran or Iraq. And many more anti-American people in all "friendly" muslim countries. You can be pretty sure that Saddam will defy the US. They don't owe the allegiance to the US and bombing them without any evidence of their direct involvement in these attacks would have no justification.
What Buchanan doesn't seem to grasp is that this war is not about him or the neocons.
You're thesis makes no sense. Why would Saddam hire Islamic fundamentalists (who hate him) to attack the U.S.?
Saddam wants to survive. His goal is to get those sanctions lifted and get things back to the "good ol' days".
Why would he risk an ill-advised attack on America that ensures swift destruction for all culprits, including himself?
Saddam may be evil, but he's no fool.
It's nothing personal, madrussian, believe me. And I'm certainly not advocating carpet-bombing the middle east. However, if we discover that Iraq and/or Iran was involved in this, then those states will need to be dealt with harshly.
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.