Posted on 03/07/2003 4:43:46 PM PST by veronica
Alistair Cooke: Peace for our time
Bush Doctrine Unfolds :
| To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below: | ||||
| click here >>> | Bush Doctrine Unfold | <<< click here | ||
| (To view all FR Bump Lists, click here) | ||||
Can I borrow Perle's crystal ball?
These are such far out ideas that I never thought that GW would pick them up. I thought GW had more sense than that. That was before I realized that Cheney, Rumsfield, Bolton, Libby, etc. were also part of this clique...and 9/11 put GW in shock and anger.
I don't like any of this, but as long as we have 200,000+ troops there, we have to do it now. And I support our President, our military and our country 100% with much trepidation and prayers.
I completely agree with you, meema. There's no going back now.
. For the past 20 years we have worked on a strategy that enables us to fight at least two major wars simultaneously. We are not going to let North Korea off the hook simply because we are working to get rid of Saddam.
Perle: "Well, I haven’t seen any reference to chicken doves, so I assume that it’s only if you take a hawkish position that the fact that you did not serve in the military is held against you. I think it’s an intimidating McCarthyite tactic. It tries to de-legitimize the views of people on an entirely irrelevant measure."
No, he wasn't good at it. Apparently service is entirely irrelevant to some who didn't serve. Lock and load, think-tank soldier.
You may disagree but keep in mind who you are disqualifying if you do.
And don't try to confuse military service with actual combat.
The former is often no different than office work or physical labor.
The latter? Well. Who am I to argue with George Washington or Andrew Jackson or Theodore Roosevelt or Dwight Eisenhower about its value?
I apologize for my first reply. That was directed towards someone with serious views. That's not you. You're some sort of idiot who thinks our leaders miss the obvious. In other words you're an arrogant fool.
Richard Brookhiser in "The Mind of George W. Bush" (Atlantic Monthly, April 2003) points out that Dubya sought the advice of Robert D. Kaplan on the Middle East. That tells me he's very, very serious and very, very well informed.
I doubt that you even know who Kaplan is.
You should have stopped while you were ahead; ad hominem attacks and non sequiturs have limited utility.
I presume you mean Robert D. Kaplan, author of Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Requires a Pagan Ethos. Although my reply wasn't remotely to do with Dubya--Richard Perle was the subject--it's safe to say Dubya hasn't fully embraced Kaplan's ethos. His underestimation of economics as a political driver aside, Kaplan's an intelligent guy with some useful viewpoints.
Kaplan's book "The Ends of the Earth" is the one which really impressed me.
Perle defended himself against two charges; that his loyalty was to Israel rather than the U.S., and that his lack of military experience disqualified his views on policy. You were only interested in the second charge. I'll stand by my response - until you come up with something new.
More generally, the neocons wish to refashion the Middle-East in our image - believing that's the only way to reduce conflict, increase material wealth, and bring stability to the region. To me that's a reasonable assessment. But can they do it? That Dubya would consult Kaplan is encouraging. They're aware of the difficulties. That Wolfowitz has extensive experience in the Third World is good. Cheney and Rumsfeld are tough pragmatists. Good as well. But Perle seems to be an ideologue. Not good. Beyond that are only shadows. The costs are great and the numbers don't seem to add up. The Arab world is ripe for change (I've posted an interesting article from Al Ahram which I'll reference as soon as I find it).
It wasn't a non-sequitur. It was a leap with two many skipped steps.
Bush is taking the advice of neo-cons. He appears to be one of them - at least in foreign policy. He's well aware of the issues - he knew about Kaplan's work and thought it worth-while enough for a private meeting. The other neo-cons are just as thoughtful, educated, and carefull, or more so. Therefore, it's completely unreasonable to think they're unaware of the horrors of war.
It wasn't a non-sequitur. It was a leap with two many skipped steps.
Bush is taking the advice of neo-cons. He appears to be one of them - at least in foreign policy. He's well aware of the issues - he knew about Kaplan's work and thought it worth-while enough for a private meeting. The other neo-cons are just as thoughtful, educated, and carefull, or more so. Therefore, it's completely unreasonable to think they're unaware of the horrors of war.
Very phrophetic. It is the real answer to the question of why the people in Iraq are resisting the way they are. And, well said too!
How come you're not running Fox news?
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.