Posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:02 PM PST by ouroboros
Nov. 13 was a good day for America and a great day for George W. Bush. Kabul fell, the Taliban were suddenly on the run, and the president's men and U.S. armed forces seemed to have engineered a brilliant victory without the loss of a single American in combat.
A surge of national confidence sent the Dow soaring, and the NASDAQ rose 3 percent. Bush's next poll should find him near the 90 percent approval rating in which his father basked after Desert Storm.
For Bush, it has been a good war that has firmly rooted his presidency in the hearts and minds of Americans. His role has been one any leader would have relished. When terrorists smashed those airliners into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Americans – from the Hollywood Left to the Old Right – united in rage and resolve to avenge the massacres.
All Bush had to do was say, "Let's roll."
Now comes the hard part. Bush must soon post the goals for phase two of the War on Terror, a decision that could split apart his unified country or shatter his war coalition. For America's foreign policy elites are not united on phase two. As in the great battle between FDR and the America First of 1940-41, they are already separating into a War Party and a Peace Party.
The choice Bush must make: Does phase two mean an attack on Iraq and the destruction of Saddam Hussein? Or does phase two mean a diplomatic initiative to honor Bush's commitment to our Arab allies to midwife a Mideast peace and the birth of a new nation called Palestine?
Will the president lead the War Party in a military campaign to destroy Iraq, Hamas and Hezbollah? Or will he, after his victory in the Hindu Kush, lead the Peace Party? That is the question of the hour.
The War Party has already begun to pound the drums. The first ragged foot soldier of the Northern Alliance had not stumbled into Kabul before the "On-to-Baghdad!" boys were back waving the bloody shirt. Not a day passes that some hawkish journalist does not discover a new link between Saddam and the suicide pilots, or between Iraq and the anthrax, though the Bush administration repeatedly denies it.
Who leads the War Party? Thus far, leadership is confined to the chattering classes – radio and TV talking heads, think-tank scribblers, editorialists at The Wall Street Journal and The Weekly Standard, National Review and The New Republic, and columnists on the op-ed pages of the Washington and New York papers. But the War Party yet lacks for a powerful political leader. Look for John McCain to fill the void.
In their now famous open letter, William Bennett, Gary Bauer, Jean Kirkpatrick and 38 other ex-Republican officials and foreign-policy scholars warned Bush that if he failed to attack Iraq, he faced court-martial for surrender in the War on Terror. "You must finish the job your father failed to finish," Bush is daily instructed.
Given the clamor for a wider war from within his own camp of media allies, and the scourging he will receive if he fails to take the war to Baghdad, why is Bush holding back?
First, Colin Powell does not want a wider war.
Second, Bush has been put on notice that no NATO ally, not even Tony Blair, will support a new war on Iraq. Europe wants a new American peace initiative. Nor will any major Arab ally support us. The Saudis have already declared their bases off-limits to the United States for a second Desert Storm.
Third, where the president's father had unanimous Security Council support for the first Gulf War, the son would face a Chinese, Russian and perhaps French veto, and U.N. condemnation.
Fourth, while Saddam is far weaker than he was before he ran afoul of Gen. Schwarzkopf, so are we. Since 1991, the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force have been cut in half. If we are to march up the road to Baghdad, this time it will take more than six months to build up the necessary forces in the Gulf. And, unlike Afghanistan, there will be no Northern Alliance to do the fighting. All the ground troops will be Americans.
For these reasons, and because his father still believes he was right not to march on Baghdad, the son will probably not invade – and the War Party will probably not prevail, unless hard evidence is found of Saddam's involvement in Sept. 11.
But if Bush spurns the War Party, will he lead the Peace Party, collar Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat, and be the godfather of a new Palestinian state? Or is that Mission Impossible?
Bush should enjoy his triumph. Difficult days lie ahead.
Patrick J. Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Party’s candidate in 2000. Now a commentator and columnist, he served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national televison shows, and is the author of six books. His current position is chairman of The American Cause. His newest book, "Death of the West," will be published in January.
What he writes, and you read, is his life.
Until 2004. Then he becomes a public nuisance.
The idea of attacking Iraq by ourselves ought to give every rational American pause. Can you say "draft"?
Yes, but the trick is where the evil is located, or where is the border between good and evil. Puritanism makes people to think that the border separates the elect and the condemned while the traditional insight is that the border goes across EVERY human heart. If we accept the second view then the primary restraining of the evil we will do in ourselves. But if we believe in the first way then most likely we will consider ourselves as being on the side of good and our enemies as evil (them being Irish papists, Indians, Spaniards, Commies, rightwingers, leftists, Serbs, Arabs, Chinese, whomever). This is the fundamental difference.
The true conservatism is based on the continuity, tradition and sound awareness of the complexity of human nature. The post-Puritan break with the tradition and the past is revolutionary, subversive, corruptive and regressive toward the barbarism.
There's a parallel here in the way that the Leftists of the early 20th century jumped on Wilson's war wagon, because they thought it would bring them more power, the realization of their schemes, and a reorganization of the world.
Or to paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt: "Talk softly (Powell) and carry a big stick (Rumsfield)."
I predict that phase two will take place in the military tribunals. They will be ongoing with a seeming permanence, indicting alot of terrorists and leaders who have supported them. It will put the likes of Hussein into the appropriate venue, a military court. Its purpose will be to showcase would-be terrorists of their ultimate destiny. It will expose the cowardly and cultist nature of these terrorists, and the media play will blast the hero-martyr model that is so effectively used to condition vulnerable populations.
When was the last time Buchanan was right about anything?
You are avoiding my question. Again I ask, what did you find so disagreeable in Buchanan's assesment of the situation?
How about this quote to start with? Buchanan acts as if Bush is now happy about the terrorist acts when nothing could be farther from the truth. To make a claim that Bush actually "relishes" his role in the aftermath of the terrorists attacks is evidence that Buchanan is so full of himself that he wishes attacks of this nature would occur if he were President.
The terrorists attacks did not allow Bush to become or make him a leader, the events of September 11, and those earlier in his Presidency, have shown the world just what kind of leader he is.
Buchanan is nothing more than a self-centered egotist of the highest rank who only thinks he knows what's best for the United States and for its individual citizens. He is a socialist, because he wants to control your life and what you can do. The fact that you think you like everything he stands for does not make him any less of a socialist. Like all socialists, he believes thew only reason socialism has failed is because he isn't the one in charge of the country. What arogance!!
Am I afraid to answer the question? Not at all!!
I think that may be stretching it just a bit. I don't read into that paragraph what you do, but I will admit it could have been put a little better.
Buchanan is not saying Bush relishes the terrorist attacks. Your point is quite correct, though, when you point out that Bush was a leader before the attacks and the way he has dealt with the attacks has showed the world what a good leader he is. Buchanan should have put as well as you have.
Best Regards!
Are you for an Iraqi campaign or against one? I do agree it'd be quite a show.
Its time to consult your map. Afghanistan and Pakistan are central Asian countries. The Middle East extends only as far east as Iraq.
To be exact the Middle East is where Pakistan is. Syria, Iraq, Israel are in the Near East. "Near East" is the name used in USA before the political correctness, is being used in other countries and is still used as name of the departments in the more prestiguous universities which had power to withstand the pressure and had an ambition to protect their scholarship or tradition.
But aren't you being a bit pedantic? My point, supporting PJB's argument that we would have to attack Iraq by ourselves, was that the NA (whatever its etnicity) furnished almost all of the ground forces in Afghanistan. Where do you expect the infantry to come from for your block by block campaign to take Baghdad and kill Sadam (which may be very similiar to the Russian Army's Battle for Berlin in '45)?
I've also wondered what the "rulers" of Iran must be thinking while they are watching the pictures coming out of Kabul.
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.