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.
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.
This whole idea of an Iraqi connection, was dreamed up in Wolfowitz's office and leaked to the press.
The man is absolutely salivating at the prospect of toppling Saddam.
I think that's debatable, actually. This guy has made some serious miscalculations in the past; we cannot be confident that he will behave rationally. That's one of the main reasons he has to be eliminated.
Ummm... is that what should drive American Leadership... 'cause that's what we've had for the previous 8 years... and John McCain was soundly defeated last I remember?
You're joking, right? These are the "good ol' days" for Saddam. He has consolidated power, continued building palaces, and ended hostilities with some of his erstwhile competitors in the Middle East.
Things just don't get any better than that when you're a sociopathic dictator.
Arator is not my leader. I am an "army of one".
Additionally, Pat's a money grabber, taking my money to fund and fuel his crank ideas in a futile election quest.
Well, as they say in the 'Hood, "Don't hate the player, hate the game". Almost every presidental candidate takes Federal money of some sort. The system is in place and the 12.6 million was gonna go somewhere. Bay's kids college fund is as good a place for it as any (that's a joke).
*Who else finds this indenting stupid and the font girly?
Really? Why did he write this article?
I got to run, see you later.
I don't have problem with that. But the neocons have already come up with a list of countries that need to be "taken care of". And it seems the scope of retaliation they have in mind is more like a war against islam, rather than retaliation.
I don't see a contradiction.
Personally, I think that the future is uncertain. This may remain a limited operation against terrorist networks. On the other hand it may also turn into a global war against Islam. We have a limited ability to control that.
I applaud the administration's efforts to contain the conflict so far, and I hope they are successful. However, if "Islam," by which I suppose I mean the great masses of practioners throughout the M.E., decides that it wants war, however, we will not be able to prevent it.
When your people are dying of disease due to lack of medicine, believe me, things are not so good. No leader needs that kind of unrest. And before the Gulf War, Saddam didn't need those "competitors". Iraq, along with Israel, was the regional superpower.
BTW, since you noticed, who do you think caused all of these "erstwhile competitors" (putting it mildly, hated enemies would be more accurate) to fall head over heels for Saddam?
I applaud the administration's efforts to contain the conflict so far, and I hope they are successful. However, if "Islam," by which I suppose I mean the great masses of practioners throughout the M.E., decides that it wants war, however, we will not be able to prevent it.
In which case, we had all better say a prayer, because we are talking about World War, and endless terrorist attacks.
Re: military service of the gang of 41 war mongers - Now that's a interesting point. Makes you wonder how many of them wore the uniform in a risk situation.
My guess? Zero or close to it. It is a well-known but seldom-commented-on-in-polite-circles fact here in Washington that the loudest voices in favor of war -- any war will do -- have never served their country in uniform. Nor have their offspring.
LOL! As if he cares. This is the same guy who gassed "his people" and who continues to brutally repress them through his secret police. In this brief exchange, you and I have already spent more time thinking about the welfare of "his people" than Saddam has in his entire career.
"...who do you think caused all of these "erstwhile competitors" (putting it mildly, hated enemies would be more accurate) to fall head over heels for Saddam?
I'm sure I'll regret this, but I'll bite anyway: who? Just please spare me the "it's the fault of cruel and senseless Imperialism on the part of the US, stuff," ok?
What America does may determine how great masses of practitioners react. It may turn into a jihad against the "Great Satan", in which case Osama bin Laden will be vindicated in the eyes of non-radical muslims. It's easy to step into the abyss, and it seems that the neocons and terrorists have the same goal of starting a global war.
Me, I'm saying my prayers regardless. But I'm not too worried about the world war you describe. It would be over in a flash, literally.
I'm more worried about a new Cold War with Islam, a war of attrition that the US and her allies cannot win.
But what happens if, in prosecuting a just and limited operation to destroy al-Quaeda and her sister organizations, we still incite the Islamic masses? Already, many of them are purchasing t-shirts with bin Ladin's face and praising him as a "hero."
Do you really want to declare a billion people your enemies? I think this is exactly what the terrorists wanted.
Isn't it infuriating when something is so bloody obvious and the knee-jerk armchair warriors and their vanguard microphone-hogging leaders are unable or unwilling to see it? I think if Osama had passed wind in some remote cave somewhere these neocons would have taken it as a clear sign that a world war was in order. They do have the dialectic down very well, that you have to hand them.
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.