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.
I'm a little thick this am.(there's a real suprise), could you expand on this.
Well, maybe someone else could give you a better explanation, still I will try to give it a shot.
I did not say anything especially original. It is a well established approach among people working on history of ideas, political theory, sociology etc, that the content of a dominating religion is having a critical impact on the whole society even if the society itself is not explicitely religious. That is why you hear about Protestant work ethics, or differences between Lutheran or Catholic parts of Europe for example. People working along those lines were Max Weber, Erich Fromm and many others.
The religion in question is Puritanism - a radical form of Calvinism which is responsible for many aspects of the American mindset. Calvinism (at least to some exten) asserts the predestination and division of the people into the elect and condemned. In its radical forms leads to the millenarian expectation of the the New Society, Beacon on the Hill purified from the evil by the purifying Puritans. Since the division between good and evil can be seen here as going between good and evil people the way of purifaction is obvious - kill the bad guys (like Irish papists under the Extirpation Act) and help the good win. Then the evil will be eradicated. Or in more moderate form the war on particular evil is proclaimed - like on alcohol drinking during the prohibition, on drugs or domestic violence etc, with the expectation of the Golden Age following the victory.
Of cource this approach is based on the profound ignorance of human nature where the border between good and evil goes through every human heart. In this sense Puritanism is sectarian ie it narrows and disects the Western traditional multidimensional concept of man and reduces it to the simple black and white stereotypes so well expressed, popularised and fortified by the Hollywood. The evil/badness/shadow present in everyone is projected into an enemy and the search for justice is expressed in Cromwellian military way, what always leads to the frustration and failure.
The best contrasting vision is provided by the great writer of the English language - Joseph Konrad Korzeniowski, who grew up in a Roman Catholic culture. For him the civilisation is the main tool which through the acumulated and carefuly preserved tradition restrains the evil impulses in man. But those impulses are never really eradicated and the situation of collapse, war or finding onself in the uncivilised surounding come to the surface. This training, slow and tedious taming is the only barrier which does not allow civilised Westerner from showing the face of a savage. When this fragile restraint is removed we enter the Heart of Darkness which could be seen in the Africa of the time of Conrad but which was in the past on banks of the Thames and which we might see again the future.
At least the original Calvinism posessed the awarness of human sinfulness. But in post-Puritan America the Enlightment doctrine of the basic goodness of man combined with the revolutionary fervor of revolt against tradition and selfish pursuit of happiness leads to the disguised nihilism combined with self-righteous hypocrisy and pseudo-moral rethoric.
Yep, and the US and Russia are getting ready to crack open the Middle East like a giant rotten camel turd. There is only so much Ragism the West can take before it's time for another Crusade.
Where is this legendary coalition? Not one Arab soldier is fighting on our side. not one Arab country has come out in support of us. Not one Arab country is spending a dime in this war. Someone please explain to me who is in this coalition and what they are doing for us?
Do you trust the Saudis?
The main reason the Soviet Union invaded Afhganistan was to run a pipeline from the Caspian Sea to the Gulf. They failed. Now with the help of his new buddy Bush, Putin will be able to build his pipeline, help the Russian economy and help the US reduce the depenence on Middle East oil. That is why these two leaders are getting along so well!
It won't matter if the Middle East cuts oil production the deficit will be made up by non-OPEC Countries, OPEC recently tried to cut production and drive up prices but they failed because the slack in production was picked up by non-OPEC countries.
You nailed it.
Surely people didn't swallow the line this state visit by Putin's been solely about reduction of nuclear arsenals?
...brother.
And they can be thrown clean out of any vicinity of the fields, along with their fellow Saudi camels. Which would tend to drive the price down again :)). Didn't you notice? These guys that some folks seem to like so much are being killed. Finally.
This part made me ill...it's hard for me to read beyond it...
As if any decent leader would "relish" something that began with the death of thousands of American citizens....that's just sick...
We must never forget that this "war" began on September 11...not on October 7.
-penny
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.