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.
Saddam Hussein as Baath party leader is a militant secularist, to the extent that he was waging a war (US and Soviet supported) against Khomeini's Iran. Bin Laden and his associates are related to the Saudies ruling in Arabia who are the most extreme Muslim sect - Wahabites which is causing mess in Balkans, Chechnya and elsewhere. The head of the snake in in Riyadh not in Baghdad.
Overthrowing secular regime in Iraq very likely will make the situation worse, not better.
Yep, I guess 60 days were many years to them.
I think Jim is hinting that Pat is out of his element here in the good ol' U.S. of A. and is being called home to his ancestral Ireland. While the tune of Danny Boy, or the Londonderry Air, is Irish, the popular lyrics posted here were penned by an Englishman. Not a spectacularly witty post but I think I got the point just the same. I also disagree with it.
This war is not on any particular country, but on the Al Qaeda network and its future heirs. If such are found in Iraq, we make war on Iraq; if not, we don't.
We would be justified to make war on terrorits organizations unrelated to the Twin Towers massacre: Hesbollah and Hamas, but not being in a direct conflict with them we should probably let Israel do it, unless Hesbollah or Hamas attack us or merge with Al Qaeda.
This is a CAMPAIGN against terrorism.
The Campaigns In WWII included N. Africa, Italy, and D-Day + Breakout & Invasion.
There are strategic reasons for taking out Afghanistan first. The real question is this: who is the most logical second step in the campaign.
I submit that it is Iraq. Turkey will not object to restoring the prestige it had (rule) during the Ottoman years. Iran still covets the oil fields where the two countries share a border. With Afghanistan no longer a threat on its eastern border, and a NATO attack led by Turkey on the Northwest border, with a Kurdish uprising coordinated with the attacks, then the allies can seize a considerable portion of Iraq as a first step in the campaign.
This resolve will send a clear message to the Wahabbi's in Saudi. They will back down or we will change the regime.
Iraq is the logical second step.
This is a CAMPAIGN against terrorism.
Is it a campaign against concrete movement or is it a neo-Puritan campaign to eradicate some type of the evil in its all manifestations? If the first it might succeed if the second it will make sitation worse.
This article, taken by itself, is quite accurate in its portrayal of the current political situation surrounding this war. Bush has a choice: expand the war to other nations (and lose the coalition in the process) or end the war with the destruction of Taliban/bin Laden and begin a new peace process. Frankly, the existence of this fork in the road is somewhat undeniable. I don't understand the hysteria.
Yep, I guess 60 days were many years to them.
Actually it was 8 months instead of the 8-10 years they predicted. American (and other) ingenuity brought new techniques to a problem that had never been seen on that scale.
Doesn't the Constitution mandate that Bush protect U.S. citizens regardless of what other nations say or do? In this case, the only defense is a good offense (this is where I part company with Buchanan). Buchanan is the other extreme from Bush the globalist - Buchanan is an isolationist.
My prediction: After Afghanistan we will not do anything other than rattle the saber. Our leaders do not have the moral courage to do what has to be done to protect American citizens.
Gee PJ, what "chattering class" do you fit into these days. Not many radio and TV shows are clamoring for your "talking head" these days. I could be wrong but I doubt if any of the "think tanks" are pinning away from your erudite philosophies. Have you had many calls from the editors of the WSJ, New Republic Weekly Standard, or National Review lately? And to be honest I don't read many op-ed's in the Washington or New York papers but I doubt if your words are finding their way onto their pages either.
Gee, I guess WND is the only place for 3 time loser, chattering class types to end up these days.
Take heart however Pat, 3 or 4 of your minions here on FR will come to your support, so not all your wind will be wasted.
True, but he's not his father.
I'm a little thick this am.(there's a real suprise), could you expand on this.
I may be wrong here, but I think it was his overt attempts to get Gore elected in 2000 that soured his cheese here. But I could be wrong, so who knows?
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.