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.
When was the last time Buchanan was right about anything?
I agree. Buchanan outlined the two paths available to Bush. My only disagreement with Buchanan is that he indicates that Bush has not yet chosen which path to take. Bush, in fact, started down the Peace path when he said the word "Palestine" in his speech to the U.N. And the world expects Colin Powell on Monday to take step two.
OB, The best bottom line out there. Remember the senior Bush after his war win. Peace and love, George.
TONY BLAIR has urged President George Bush to throw the full weight of the United States behind a new push for peace in the Middle East.
Over dinner at the White House last night, the Prime Minister warned that Arab and Muslim countries would not fully support the war on terrorism unless they were convinced America and its allies were committed to a long-term solution in the Middle East and Afghanistan.
Mr Blair is also understood to have appealed to President Bush not to widen the bombing campaign to Iraq. British ministers are worried there is pressure coming from hardliners such as Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, and Richard Perle, anadviser, to extend strikes to Iraq.
Let's Roll!
This absolutely proves to me that Buchanan has NO IDEA what he is talking about. 1) This war would be nothing like the last one 2) All tyrannical governments have local insurgent populations, Iraq has more than most 3) don't look for a hundred thousand troops and masses of hardware, this war will be quiet & behind the scenes and 4) Saddam WILL GO before the end of Bush's first term (too dangerous to let him stay, and no President ever has a guarantee of a second term). My predictions.
You should change you nickname from "Otto von Bismark" (who said "The Balkans are not worth the life of a single Pomeranian grenadier.") to something more applicable like "Kaiser Wilhelm II".
Buchanen is merely promoting his old saw....hatred for Israel and support for the Palestinians. He would abandon the war against those determined to kill us, and he would have us all align with his Chamberlain Party because that's what the weak-kneed do. They give in to bullies and then try to put a rosy lining around the cloud.
If someone is telling Bush to take out Saddam because Saddam funds and provides R&D and C&C for those who murder us, then that person, God help him, should have the President's ear.
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.