Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

The answer to your question “I wonder why?” follows:

“What forced Gaddafi to act was a combination of things — U.N. sanctions after the Lockerbie bombing, his international isolation after the Soviet Union’s collapse … and internal economic problems that led to domestic unrest by Islamists and forces within the military,” said Ray Takeyh, a Libya expert at the National Defense University.

It is a bit of a stretch in lieu of the history for anyone to ask me to believe Pres. Bush had anything to do with it.

David — of course all the things you mention were a contributing factor towards finally making Gaddafi cave in.

But they’ve been trying that for ages. The Lockerbie bombing was what - a couple of decades ago? Why now? What was the last straw that broke the camel’s back?

We’ll never know what went on inside Gaddafi’s head, but come on —- if we put two and two together, it almost certainly had something to do with a certain fellow dictator getting his mouth prodded by an American ;-)

Vivek, as you say, the role Hussein’s capture played can be little more than that of a straw that broke the camel’s back, insignificant under the weight of the history of Libya under Gaddafi. I concede your point.

For me, it always comes down to “Does the end justify the means?”

Some good may certainly come out of invading Iraq. Maybe they will end up with a functioning democracy. Maybe it will have a calming effect on despots around the world. But do these things justify lying to the American people?

If Bush had been straight with us and came out saying “Well folks, we don’t like the way things are going in the Middle East, so we are going to invade and roll the dice and see if we come up with something better.” I may have protested and said “It’s not worth the risk!”, but at least we would have understood the reasoning.

We have yet to see whether Gaddafi will be as forthcoming as he promises to be.

Let me submit a hypothetical: what if he doesn’t want to really let go of those weapons? What if he wants to pit the Europeans and Arab’s against us? He teases us with some reductions, then hides the rest and claims that Bush is about to do to Libya what he did to Iraq!

Another hypothetical: What if he’s trying to get the sanctions lifted, without having to give up all the weapons? He gives us some, to be destroyed, to be carted away, then he has some buried or shifted around?

I’m not saying Gaddafi hasn’t been scared into doing this, but I am saying that if we assume his motivations and future plans according to our desired outcome, then we may very well end up having been played for fools.

I mean, Saddam did sign that agreement to give up his weapons, did he not? And did he not stall, bully and cajole his way out of being utterly honest?

Let us consider the possibility that other strategies may be at work than the simple surrender of a dictator to American policy.

The greatest weapon any foreign leader has to use against the U.S. is the invitation to Bush to demonstrate his abuse of might. A little subtle thinking and an apparent opportunity for political gain by Bush is all that is needed to lead the U.S. into a trap where the use of our might will in retrospect be viewed as tyrannical, abusive, and threatening to world peace.

How do you bring down a bully, by inviting the bully to demonstrate their bullying in public without the bully realizing there is an audience. Bush is particularly vulnerable now to these tactics, and it remains to be seen, as Stephen postulates, whether Gaddafi, or any other non-democratic leader, is capable of such subtle thinking and tactics.

Vivek, your “Update: story here” link, reveals the fact that this President hasn’t a clue what he is doing. He came into office inheriting a program with N. Korea in which the U.S. was providing rewards to N. Korea for abstaining from the development of WMD. Pres. Bush, quickly announced an end to that ‘Clintonian’ program.

Now in you UPDATE, the article announces “
As the United States and Britain promised rewards, Tripoli acted swiftly to prove its commitment to the world at large.”

… providing rewards to N. Korea for abstaining from the development of WMD. Pres. Bush, quickly announced an end to that ‘Clintonian’ program.

So, ummm… it was OK when Clinton did it, and now that Bush is doing it, its not?

But see —- now that the US is giving concessions to Libya for destroying its WMDs, i.e. diplomacy, the US is being attacked. Had it taken a more hardline approach, they would have been called “hawks” and “war-mongers”.

There’s just no way to win, is there? Damn! ;-)

Since you’re hitting Bush-Blair for this move, what would you rather have had the US and UK do, in this case?

David,
would you rather continue a program with N. Korea that allows Kim Jong Il to starve his own people because Clinton started it? You can’t blame Clinton for trusting another foreign leader to do the right thing, but at some point you have to cut them off if they’re not doing the right thing, regardless of who instituted the program.

There’s a great article from Foreign Affairs that actually discussed Libya’s current move away from WMD. From what I gathered, Gaddafi is actually looking to separate Libya from the Middle East, not completely, but enough that they remove themselves from Israel-Palestine and other disputes. He’s also looking to bring Africa forward rather than leave them behind, so what he’s doing is a marked change for him, but for some reason or another he is indeed changing, so that’s a start.

JT, fine, but why are the payments to Gadaffi going to be any different? Think payments to Gadaffi are going to open his heart to his people? I don’t think so. Double standard for Bush to scrap Clinton’s solution only to reinstate it under his own name and call it good.

Vivek, I want to see the U.S. lead NATO and the U.N. to solving regional problems with regional solutions and resources. I want to see the U.S. stop putting the burden of World Wide Super Cop on the backs of taxpayers. I was just as opposed to these kind of World cop programs under Clinton as I am under Bush.

I don’t mind as a tax payer participating in a multi-national effort to resolve a regional problem that holds no direct threat to the U.S. That is fine. But, when the U.S. ignores its 7 TRILLION dollar debt to bribe dictators to play nice without the cooperation of most of the rest of nations in the world, or at least the assistance of the regional countries closest to the dictator who have a vested interest, I am opposed, adamantly, regardless of party.

Though good news, Libya’s decision to adandon it’s WMD program is not directly related to Saddam Hussein’s capture. Quite the contrary, the one-time CIA operative’s arrest gave more attention to how preoccupied we are with Iraq and highlighted how our military is stretched too thin.

America’s prowess on the battlefield has been established for sometime. But our military readiness is compromised at the moment due to Bush Administration policy choices. If a long-time enemy wanted to strike America, the right time would be now. Democrats and Republicans in Congress realize this and are talking about increasing the size of our armed forces as a result. Some are even talking about reinstating the draft.

To make matters worse, our relations with our traditional European allies is tenuous. Countries that would, in the past, be able to contribute money, machinery, or people to compensate for our current shortcomings are not feeling as bullish on our great country as they did once.

If the negative feelings were only held by European political leaders, it would not be as big an issue because it would be easier to bring them back into the fold. But the way the Bush Administration behaved in the runup to war in Iraq has created a groundswell of anti-American sentiment among the general populace. Turkey refused to allow the United States to set up bases on their soil due to widespread opposition to the idea.

Republicans like to dismiss Europe but I ask, “Which countries would you rather have on your side in a global war: France and Germany or Cameroon and Poland? Bush likes to say that a coalition of 60 nations is fighting alongside America in Iraq. Have you ever looked at that list? I have and it’s not a who’s who of the world’s military powers.

In light of all of this, I think it is unlikely that Saddam Hussein’s capture was the straw that broke Gaddafi’s back. Besides, several nations have been negotiating with Libya for decades. If anything it is more likely that Gaddafi’s decision was prompted by a desire to recoup the $2.7 billion Libya is paying to the families of those killed over Lockerbie by maximizing business opportunities created by the U.N. lifting sanctions in September of this year.

It is it any surprise that North Korea and China are flexing their muscle now. Prior to the Bush Wars, I believe they would not be posturing themselves so aggressively so as not to elicit a military response from America. North Korea and China sense that our tolerance levels are much higher now due to the quagmire the Bush people have gotten us into.

Well, well… we are happily giving Bush credit not only for snagging Saddam but also dumping Omar.

Well, the rest of the world seems to be finding out the Saddam capture was another Jessica Lynch tale. Turns out the Kurds had already caught him and “planted” himf or US capture in cahoots with the coalition.

Do a Google news search, you’ll find at least 10 stories on this.

JCC

“He came into office inheriting a program with N. Korea in which the U.S. was providing rewards to N. Korea for abstaining from the development of WMD.”

You forgot to mention the fact that we were providing rewards for abstaining from the development of WMD while they in fact continued to develop and maintain WMD anyway . Bush ceased the payments because NK was continuing the development and maintaining nuclear weapons.

Libya is said to be agreeing to actual verification, also unlike the NK government.

Distinctions abound.

Sebastian? Don’t count your chickens until they’re hatched. The process hasn’t started yet, so to say that the Libyans are better than the North Koreans at compliance is premature.

There have been no inspections yet to frustrate or cooperate with. We’ve not yet come to the front gate of a plant only to be turned aside by angry guards. When the process is underway, then we’ll see.

And if all goes well, then it will be a good thing. Frankly, I’m not sad to see dictators quaking in their boots.

I’m just disappointed though that we had to give so much of our honor, our trustworthiness, and our integrity to achieve that.

Look, Democrats are not historically peaceniks. World War I, II, Korea, Vietnam all were entered into during Democrat administrations. Democrats crossed the aisle to support Gulf War I.

Neither do we lack the resolve to face up to agression, or threats to our national security. If you recall, it was Adlai Stevenson, as big a liberal as you can get, who called the Russian ambassador on his lie when he said there were no missiles in Cuba. It was John F. Kennedy who successfully got the functional missiles out of Cuba in exchange for a few obsolete missiles from Turkey.

But what if the Bush Doctrine had been applied, with all it’s presumptions? Then I most likely would not exist. Bush’s Doctrine is supposed to make America’s response to terrorism more flexible, less restrained by international law and diplomatic runarounds.

What it in fact does is constrain America’s response to terrorism, because we cannot always go in with guns blazing without stirring world opinion against us.

Additionally, it has stetched our Armed forces thin. Any major conflict erupts, we won’t have the troops to properly face it. We don’t don’t have the troops, without a draft, to face up to a two front war. We didn’t have enough to properly secure either of the two countries we’re in.

The military is a poor weapon for fighting terrorism, unless you have a state like the Taliban to aim the forces against. There, the number of troops we funnelled into Iraq could have enabled us to own the territory. Today, only Kabul has any semblance of law and order. The warlords are once again in control, and things have not gotten better.

It’s ironic. The Republican use to think of themselves as the realists. Now they seem to be the idealists, the ones chasing a dream of the world as they would like to have it, rather than facing the world as it is.

Stephen -

But what if the Bush Doctrine had been applied…?

The Bush doctrine is not the same as going in with guns blazing into every regime the US disagrees with. Rather, it is what really gives diplomacy its effectiveness — the backing of real, physical strength. Only-talk diplomacy (the kind France typically espouses) is meaningless. What incentive does a dictator have to cave in before a bunch of reasonable people in suits? But reasonable people in suits with GIs behind them — that’s a different matter. The Gaddafi pre-emptive surrender highlights this point wonderfully.

The military is a poor weapon for fighting terrorism, unless you have a state like the Taliban to aim the forces against.

I can see your point here. This is precisely the question Rumsfeld raised in his much maligned memo —- “Do we need a new organization?”

The American military machinery is still one that is designed for an old model of warfare. Country A attacks Country B, and they slug it out for a while in a high intensity conflict, usually geographically restricted to the soil of A and B.

A much more agile, light, and distributed force is needed to combat an enemy that is also distributed and is interested in engaging us in low-intesity, uneven, prolonged battle. What shape such a form takes, what powers it has etc. is quite an open question.

Don’t knock reasonable people. Once we’re convinced, we’re sometimes the people who pull the trigger with the fewest questions. If Bush had had a real case for Terrorism, a real case for WMD, I’d be with him. But he BSed his way through it, and we are losing lives, losing dignity and losing money for that.

First, we should have checked that evidence out. If the evidence is not there for the claims we’re making, we’ve got no call expecting the rest of the world to go along with us, much less going to war on those terms.

Second, we could have gone in there with UN support, with them there to take the Iraqi problem out of our hands once the heavy lifting of the firefights was over.

As for new organizations, I’d be careful what you wish for. Such things have come back to bite us before.

TO: Vivek and Stephen Daugherty.

Gentlemen, I wish to tip my hat to you both. The debate and discussion between the two of you here is highly commendable. You come from opposing political perspectives, and hold somewhat differing values and priorities. Yet, the two of you put forth the effort and energy to converse, debate, and find common ground in a manner that is reflective of some of history’s greatest diplomats.

Your participation at WatchBlog helps make WatchBlog unique and worthy of all the accolades WatchBlog receives. Thank you both, and all participants here at WatchBlog, for setting such a high standard for discourse and exchange of ideas.

>>If Bush had had a real case for Terrorism, a real case for WMD, I’d be with him. But he BSed his way through it

I’ve posted what I consider to be proof that Saddam Hussein was long aiding and abetting al Qaeda.

I await your declaration of support for Bush in 2004. Or not, heh.

Richard, you should consider that this may be much of the same intelligence that people have found to be of questionable value before, that it’s discover may be owing less to fortuitive facts, than a well timed leak of a memo that was classified for good reasons.

As a matter of fact, I think I heard much of this stuff already- within the presentation that Colin Powell made at the UN.

>>Vivek, your “Update: story here” link, reveals the fact that this President hasn’t a clue what he is doing. He came into office inheriting a program with N. Korea in which the U.S. was providing rewards to N. Korea for abstaining from the development of WMD. Pres. Bush, quickly announced an end to that ‘Clintonian’ program

You fail to mention that the North Koreans were accepting Clinton’s aid, and CHEATING behind his back. I mean, did you even know that?

In contrast, so far Bush has been very tough on the North Koreans, intercepting many of their ships at sea looking for drugs and weapons and refusing most of their demands, including bilateral negotiations. I find it highly unlikely that Bush will be played for a SUCKER, like Clinton was.

>>Richard, you should consider that this may be much of the same intelligence that people have found to be of questionable value before, that it’s discover may be owing less to fortuitive facts, than a well timed leak of a memo that was classified for good reasons.
As a matter of fact, I think I heard much of this stuff already- within the presentation that Colin Powell made at the UN.

Stephen, CIA chief George Tenet testified under oath before Congress that there were links between Hussein and al Qaeda. WITHOUT ONE SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE, you brush this off by claiming Tenet lied.

I doubt most other people here would jump to a silly conclusion.

Richard:
If Tenet was giving the same largely discredited information to the Senators and Reps that was given to us, I don’t see where I need to be adding anything else- he was either misinformed or lying. The evidence is all there. One just has to look.

So far, Bush has actually proved you wrong. So far, it seems like Saddam actually bluffed the world into believing he had WMDs handy that he did not! So even a president taking a belligerent stance can be decieved by an enemy.

David,

An interesting plan for how you would have us get all that “regional” involvement in stemming the upcrop of rogue nations out there. It sounds an awful lot like the way everybody stood around waiting for “regional” involvement while more than 6,000,000 Jews were slaughtered in the 1930’s and 40’s. Our role as ‘Super Cop’, as you put it, is very financially stifling, I agree. But then again, when can you recall doing the right thing the easy, or less expensive, path?
N. Korea, Lybia, etc. are, however, very real threats to us, contradictory to your statement. Our international interdependancy is undeniable and to tackle issues without consideration of it is reckless at best. What affcets N.K. affects China, affects Japan, Russia, etc., which affects … you get the picture.
Am I concerned about our debt? You bet I am! Do I think the current administration is doing everything right? No way. But I think getting the rest of our apathetic world to do much about anything outside their own borders is pretty much a pipe dream - particularly when the UN is involved (UN-involved… that’s an oxymoron;-) ). You saw how ready they were to jump in last time we asked.