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 admit that "war on terrorism" hasn't been America's priority and that it's possible for a civilized country to have its interests furthered by looking the other way or supporting "freedom fighters". It would be highly unreasonable to expect American enemies to be very sympathetic about the events of 9/11, especially if those were bombed by America, and make it a pre-text for a war.
The official position of a government matters little, because the terrorists are often supported by rich individuals or through semi-official channels. The Saudis have done much more for the cause of jihad than a (relatively?) secular Saddam. Saddam could have been an American friend just like many other dictators in history.
How's the saying go, "Those who are your friends will become your enemies"?
When you stand up and demand that someone elses sons and daughters die for your cause you have become their enemy.
We should have killed Saddam Hussein when we had the chance but I think there was some rule about killing Heads of State at the time. America obeys the Rules and other countries don't! Are we foolish, yes, honorable, yes. Perhaps these subjects should be election discussions.
I think Bush has made it clear to the world that he is making the Rules now from his Rule Book. He doesn't want a NATO or a UN Force, he is keeping it Americans dying for America. When the Israelis decide to keep it Israelis dying for Israel I will understand them better.
I hope Bush doesn't start to whine when his enemies go to the UN for support.
Who is Noam Chomsky? I've read the 1st few sentences of his/her articles and it was all garbage! Is Chomsky a cousin of Linwinsky, Levy, maybe Dershowitz or Maher?
How can you make such an analogy? Associating Pat with the 'amen' corner people who lack the 'amen', is vicious and I don't know why I engage in shadow boxing with you .
Nothing Pat says is respected any more, except by those that supported him.
Give the man a prize. His intellectual prowess is truly something to behold. What analysis, what delivery...a work of deep insightful thinking.
The same, of course, with that place, Washington: it can change policy under pressure from Washington and begin cooperating with Washington. To a degree.
And getting Milosovic out of that ridiculous world court and restitution for the damage done by bombing Serbia. Eventually, the last administration, including the cabinet have to answer for their 'terrorism' in the Balkans.
The goal of going after the terrorists is not an itemized action plan. Agreeing with a policy is not the same as underwriting just any insane plan with an ostensibly the same goal.
Re Buchanan - the gang of 41 war mongers do not like Buchanan because Pat is for America first, last and only.
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.
Anyone know a reference to who these 41 were?
The Saudis are dependent on the US and are cooperating to some extent, but there is always a limit to what you can ask them. Can you make them eradicate financial support of jihads in the Balkans and Causasus by private persons? I wouldn't be so sure. The relationship between the Saudis and Americans is hardly alike to the one between Israelis and Palestinians, so a comparison is invalid.
New York City used to be the safest place for a Jew to live. But Ariel Sharon has seen to that.
Huh, yes, like Pat did during the last election. Give us all a break here. I still remember his actions during the crisis in that long ago (it seems) era. Buchanan has no more concern for this great country than your typical, run of the mill leftist does. Come to think of it, Pat and his Patsies are leftists, so it makes sense.
Please stop it. No one who's posted here for some time, and who supported the President during the last election is going to fall for this crap. I admit I've become a Libertarian supporter since the last election because I want some changes in some domestic policy issues. That's over now. Now is the time to rally around the flag and the government.
It's obvious that you're attempting to use this article as an insidious means to divide those of us who support the coming war, and interject Buchanan's views into the debate. You want to try and limit the government's mobility during the coming war, by limiting the war aims from the start.
I believe the government needs to have a free hand to pursue the war at will. We will see where it leads us. Buchanan doesn't understand the situation, as several posts above this one aptly point out. Also, Buchanan is, in my view, anti-Israel, our only true friend in the region.
If the war quickly widens, as I think it will, then we must pursue it there. The neos are right in that regard. The mistake we made with Saddam was knocking him down, and then allowing him to get back up to fight another day. We've learned something since that day. Pat obviously hasn't. He would knock down bin Laden, and then not deal with the fundamental problem.
Making that ultimatum to a country being bombed by the US is silly and unreasonable. Only if there is an evidence of Saddam being involved in those attacks, a retaliation would be justified, WITH OR WITHOUT any cooperation. Saddam can be relied on to continue to defy America, and neocons know it.
Buchanan is pointing out un-American interests in the neocon position and you are free to point out why a total war in Middle East is in the American interests.
I don't see any evidence of Buchanan adjusting his views to be just the opposite to the neocons', like you suggest may be true. What I see is a consistent position in both camps. The neocons' warmongering was predicted to happen right after the bombing. The motive is an important part of any analysis.
Do you think they are more prepared to see their sons, husbands, and fathers dying in our own cities?
More Americans are going to die, Either/Or, regardless of what we do. If we fail to eradicate the threat, our losses may well be measured in the millions.
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.