Whose War Is this

The American Cause | 9-27-01 | Pat Buchanan

[sinkspur]

The problem with your assessment is we have a pared down intelligence and just determined that our economy can only support a 'one-war' effort.

The problem with your (and Pat's) assessment is that taking out bin Laden and the Taliban is a band-aid.

Pat's bottom line is for the U.S. to withdraw support for Israel, which is not going to happen.

While I don't favor a Western War with Islam, something is going to have to be done about Saddam Hussein before he develops a nuclear weapon.

[ouroboros]

The Full Bumpy

[ex-snook]

I believe this was about the Bush-Powell position. Notice you did not mention Bush. Buchanan agreed with Bush. Are you a real Bush supporter?

[boltfromblue]

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." Who cares what he thinks? When Iran, which has been reducing their terrorist organization's presence is not supported in this effort, but only attacked for their past Khomeini will gain more influence there. And how do you legitimately go against or even determine an 'inclination' to support when the support has not been given?

[ouroboros]

The problem with your (and Pat's) assessment is that taking out bin Laden and the Taliban is a band-aid.

It isn't our responsibility to perform invasive surgery on the world.

We need to erase those people (and ONLY those people) who dared to murder Americans on American soil and then extricate ourselves from the whole business as quickly as possible.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

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?

Iraq's Hussein is developing the weapons of mass destruction and the delivery systems to kill millions. Hussein must be crushed and his WMD destroyed.

The fact is we cannot trust the Arabs. The "coalition" is a foolish mirage and is a recipe for betrayal of America's interests.

[boltfromblue]

Since 591 Palestinians (opposed to 169 Israelis) have been killed by Israel since their leader had the chutzpah to go to the Temple Mount, with his Mossad assassinating people, I believe we need to include eliminating the terrorists in Israel as well.

[ouroboros]

The full court press is on for the heart and mind of President Bush.

Indeed. I used to despise the iconic status Powell enjoyed in this country for doing little other than be an articulate black man -- now I thank God for it. Bush, Powell, and Condi Rice may very well succeed in steering us away from the World War III against Islam that the neocons (and Usama Bin-Laden) so desperately want.

[madrussian]

The neocons represent American people just as much as the Lenin's People's Commissariate did the Russian people. Bush has been pretty cool during all this, as far as actions are concerned, and I hope he stays that way. The war-mongering neocons are out in the open to show their agenda. Let American people take notice.

[annalex]

Buchanan's method is rather comical: examine what the neo-conservatives want, and call for something different, as if the foreign policy has to deal not with realities but with chess pieces. Bush has a clear policy: eliminate militant muslim elements wherever they are. If Iraq doesn't happen to aid them or harbor them (ha), then Iraq is not on the enemy list, otherwise it is. The world doesn't revolve around paleocons' battles in a teapot.

[kevkrom]

Assuming Buchanan isn't mischaracterizing the positions of the "neo-cons" he named, I think that Buchanan is partially correct in disagreeing with them. However, I must disagree with Buchanan's caution on some fronts...

• Iraq must be taen care of now because we cannot allow them to develop any (more) nuclear or biologial weapons capability -- it would only be a matter of time before such weapons were used against us, as long as the current regime rules Iraq.

• While Buchanan is correct that would should not using a large show of military force against some of the other tagets, such as the bases and training facilities in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and Egypt, nevertheless, these targets also need to be taken out, preferably via special-operations teams. (First for surveillance to identify the targets, then direct action to eliminate key people and facilities -- the latter may be more appropriate for a limited use of air strikes.)

• While rattling the sabre is keeping some of the less reputable governments in line, a true sign of "repentance" would be for these states to provide the intelligence necessary to locate the terrorist sites. Also, a little "looking the other way" while the missions are carried out would show some necessary sincerity.

In short, I see merits to both sides -- the "neo-cons", for the most part, have identified the key targets and Buchanan is correct to call for at least discretion in how those targets are dealt with. I would be surprised if this isn't part of the overall mission plan, anyway. The Bush Administration seems to be fighting this from a "total war" standpoint, using covert and overt military action, diplomacy, and shutting down the terrorists' funding. Hopefully, by choosing the correct method for each sub-mission, both the "neo-cons" and Buchanan can be happy with the results.

[madrussian]

Not sure about Condi. She doesn't have the tribal loyalty to Israel that the majority of the neocons are sharing, but wasn't she a student of Albright's father, Korbel?

[sinkspur]

I believe this was about the Bush-Powell position. Notice you did not mention Bush. Buchanan agreed with Bush. Are you a real Bush supporter?

Glad to have Pat's support, although it means nothing in the long run.

Bin Laden is phase one. You haven't heard Bush or Powell rule out an attack on Iraq at some point, have you?