Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Matthew, your post raises some interesting possibilities.

If Kerry wins in November (god forbid), he’ll basically inherit Iraq and be forced to try and solve all the problems he’s condemned Bush for not solving (as if fighting terror while creating stability and Democracy in the middle east were as easy as garnering wild applause at an AFL-CIO convention or falling down on the ski-slopes of Idaho).

After we watch images of celebrating Muslims in the capitals of the Arab world (and certain European capitals as well) Kerry will find himself under enormous pressure to deliver on his rhetoric. It would be quite a sight to watch him attempt to manage the expectations of the Kucinich/Dean wing of the Democratic party, his cheerleaders among utopian-socialist unnamed foreign leaders, all while under withering fire from the still Republican controlled and now very bitter Congress. I think Kerry would have a honeymoon period of about 5 minutes to deliver his utopian world of brotherly love and unilaterism under “international law.”

For starters, the French and Russians are going to want the fat oil contracts back that Hussein promised them. When Kerry says no, as he’ll have to, he’ll learn first-hand what’s it like to be the evil and hated leader of the Great Satan.

What the Neoconservatives missed is the need for good old fashioned hardcore control. It was never about military activism, it was about being able to take over from a disintegrating regime. We weren’t able to. We had to stand by and watch as law and order collapsed along with the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.

Had we gone in there with a stronger presence, we could have cut our number of troops there much quicker. They can talk about a bigger force being a bigger target, but a smaller force, stretch out, is a more vulnerable target.

Greater numbers allow more jobs to be done, more issues to be taken care of, and most importantly, a greater sense of psychological presence.

But of course, we had to demonstrate our non-numerical strength.

Stephen, I don’t think we could have put more troops into Iraq at that time. A build up to the number of troops necessary for complete pacification would have taken much longer, and Bush was not willing to wait. In fact, we had to do the job without the 4th Infantry Division because Turkey wouldn’t let them deploy for a simultaneous attack into northern Iraq.

In any case, the administration (thanks to Chalabi) truly believed they wold be welcome with open arms.

When Army Chief of Staff, General Shinseki, suggested that “several hundred thousand” troops would be needed for the occupation, he was canned. Rumsfeld and Cheney had assumed that there would be far fewer US troops in Iraq at this time than there actually are.

At one point, I was thinking that the Iraqis would vote out all remaining US troops as soon as they could hold elections, but now I’m convinced that the governing council, or it’s elected successor (when and if elections actually take place), will be calling for even more US troops to prop up the government in the face of a civil/religious war.

Whoever has to deal with Iraq next year is going to have big problems.

> After we watch images of celebrating Muslims
> in the capitals of the Arab world (and certain
> European capitals as well)

Martin, do not forget that if John Kerry wins, there will be celebrations all over the United States as well. Do you not realize that the disapproval for Bush throughout the world is shared by nearly half of all Americans?

You seem to be suggesting that every American who votes against Bush is playing into the hands of Al Qaeda. This is both rhetorically underhanded and factually questionable.

Rhetorically, there is no question in my mind (or in the mind of John McCain!) that the election of John Kerry will NOT result in a weakening of America’s security. The idea that electing Kerry will make America more vulnerable to terrorist attack is, quite frankly, infantile: It’s like telling a child that there are monsters in the basement.

Factually, it’s hard to argue that Bush’s war on terrorism has succeeded at all. Sure, the Taliban has fallen from power and Al Qaeda is definitely on the run. We achieved a lot of early successes in Afghanistan shortly after 9/11. But Bush’s fight against terror has been an example of “one step forward two steps back”.

In some ways, Bush has been the best thing that ever happened to Al Qaeda. Bush’s policies and rhetoric have helped Al Qaeda advance their primary goals: (a) to polarize, align, and unite the Muslim world in opposition to the West, (b) to increase political religious extremism, and (c) to splinter the West’s opposition to Islamic fundamentalistm and terrorism.

Even if the fire of Al Qaeda is extinguished, the world won’t be much safer: Bush has allowed (indeed, caused) thousands of terrorist brush fires to pop up around the world. To the extremist, one’s own life is less important than one’s political goals. Cut off one head and three more pop up. Even if Osama bin Laden is caught or killed tomorrow, his chaotic objectives have been largely successful, they are still growing, and they have only been exacerbated by the actions and policies of the Bush administration.

If Al Qaeda attacks the United States this year, there is no doubt that the election will be Bush’s to lose. Bush’s constant fearmongering and his cartoonishly false portrayal of John Kerry as “soft on defense” will see to that. The American people are very unlike the Spanish - we vote with our hearts more than with our brains, and we will (rightly) want very much to appear courageous to the world.

Given that Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism around the world has only increased since September 11, and given that Bush has done much to tear the world’s civilized alliances apart and to unify radical Muslim groups, my guess is that Al Qaeda really wants the “crusader” Bush to be the winner in November, not Kerry. I hope very much that the USA is spared any future terror attacks, but if one occurs before the election I hope that Americans have the courage to not vote with their fears, but to vote with their brains — for Kerry.

-Cf

Christopher, I agree that it would be totally unfair and dispicable to suggest that Kerry-supporters are somehow allies of Al Qaida or not patriotic(it’s the Dems, however, who routinely accuse Republicans of lacking patriotism—even while accusing Republicans of doing this to them though it’s never happened).

Having said that, I think it’s fairly obvious that rightly or wrongly Al Qaida and its sympathizers would delight in seeing Bush brought down. For many of us—hopefully even Democrats—the worst part of a November 3 Kerry victory would be watching the inevitable images of the ululating burka-clad middle east erupt in a delighted orgy of American-flag burning and Bush-effigy hanging.

I know that if Kerry were elected, he’d never pull a Spain and disengage—it would be politically impossible. My point is that a large contingent of our “European allies” and American Democrats would expect just that, and Kerry would soon find himself with very few domestic or international allies.

He’d learn very quickly that it’s easier to snipe on the sidelines than lead, that the “international support” that Bush supposedly squandered was an utter fantasy when dealing with countries like France who resenting their lost empires have such strong nationalist agendas and pretentions to global influence. And don’t forget, nobody seriously believes that Congress is going to change hands in 04—Kerry would inherit and have to carry out Bush’s agenda but would have very little foreign or domestic support and be a lame duck from day one.
A dangerously weak president to have in such trying times.

Martin, your comments suggest that you think that Kerry actually wants to pull our troops out of Iraq and that the only thing stopping him is political reality, a domestic and international political climate that he will have to reluctantly work around. But AFAIK that suggestion is mistaken.

I’ve never seen any evidence that Kerry wants to pull our troops out of Iraq. There are very few of his Democratic supporters - or former rivals - who are advocating that, either. There aren’t all that many European leaders who want the United States to pull out of Iraq. IN fact, there are many voices in the Democratic party that have long advocated increasing our troop presence in Iraq.

I don’t know where you got the impression that Kerry really wants to (apparently unilaterally) diminish our presence in Iraq. From Bush’s advertising? Are you confusing Howard Dean with John Kerry? Are you making it up?

What Kerry has said he would do is try to build a more international presence in Iraq, to share the burden of rebuilding Iraq with other nations. If NATO or the UN is whipped into shape by strong US leadership, a competant American president could probably rustle up 50,000 international troops to help keep the peace in Iraq. With such assistance, we could probably bring some troops home. For example, Kerry would certainly do a better job than Bush in convincing Spain to keep troops in Iraq, and he could probably bring France and Germany on board as well.

I would like to say that Bush has so far proven to be a failure at building international coalitions, but the reality is that Bush doesn’t even seem to want to share the burden. It’s not incompetance, it’s just ideological single-mindedness. As a result of Bush’s superficial committment to building international solutions to international problems, the allies we seemed to have (Spain, Poland) have proven instead to be flimsy fair-weather friends. And other potential allies are just off the table entirely.

While much of the Arab street may, as you suggest, cheer a Kerry victory, Al Qaeda ideological leaders and fundamentalist terrorists would clearly prefer a Bush victory, because it is Bush who has blindly played right into their hands, consistently delivering to them what they truly want: (1) a chaotic, fractured geopolitical landscape and (2) an enraged, emboldened, and insurgent Muslim world.

> it’s the Dems, however, who routinely
> accuse Republicans of lacking patriotism

This is ridiculous and flies in the face of common sense. I challenge you to find ONE example of this. We Democrats accuse the Republicans of selfishness, ideological backwardness, empty jingoism, and plain old incompetance - but never do we suggest that Republicans lack patriotism (if anything, we think they have too damn much patriotism!). And never have we suggested, as Bush and his surrogates do daily, that Republicans are sympathetic to terrorists.

-Cf

Christopher, I didn’t say that Kerry wants to pull out of Iraq. Actually, I’m sure he doesn’t.

What I said is that he’s beholden to that very substantial portion of the Democratic base who thinks the war was a total mistake to begin with and a hopeless “quagmire” now. How would he please these people if he becomes president—especially if he ratchets up forces as you say he might? Has Kerry made a case to the American people for Iraq that would enable him to increase force deployments?

Of course he hasn’t—he tries to discredit our efforts in Iraq at every turn, attacking constantly both our reasons for going to war and the war’s conduct.

You write: “What Kerry has said he would do is try to build a more international presence in Iraq, to share the burden of rebuilding Iraq with other nations. If NATO or the UN is whipped into shape by strong US leadership, a competant American president could probably rustle up 50,000 international troops to help keep the peace in Iraq.”

Whip the UN into shape? Kerry? That I’d love to see! If anything, Kerry has promised a double dose of pussy-footing and blames Bush for alienating our “allies” by being too confrontational. Whip the UN into shape indeed!

I’ll tell you right now that if Kerry uses those very words, if he promises “to whip the UN into shape,” I’ll not only vote for him, I’ll pass out fliers for him at anti-war rallies!

Bush tried VERY hard to bring the international community around before the war, going back to the UN repeatedly and offering a zillion concessions. This 50,000 international troops you mention is the stuff of pure imagination. The leading E.U. nations (and of course the Arab world), with their delusions of grandeur and dreams of lost empires, will continue to do everything in their power to see the United States defeated and humiliated. Personally, I find embarrassing Kerry’s unwitting cooperation in France’s post-Napoleonic fantasies of Empire.

Bush did not try hard at all to bring the UN behind us on Iraq. It was very clear that he was going to invade no matter what was decided in the UN. No real concessions were offered. No hard evidence was presented. The evidence that was presented cound not be confirmed by inspectors on the ground in Iraq.

So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they’ve been getting as “garbage after garbage after garbage.” In fact, Phillips says the source used another cruder word. The inspectors find themselves caught between the Iraqis, who are masters at the weapons-hiding shell game, and the United States, whose intelligence they’ve found to be circumstantial, outdated or just plain wrong.

Lee, it’s arguable that the war would never have happened if the UN had decided to provide a united front to Iraq, to issue a clear demand that Iraq allow free and unfettered inspections according to UN resolutions or face the use of force. Blix himself said Iraq wasn’t cooperating.

As far as the quality of intelligence goes, well, we all can now agree that a lot of it was bad. That doesn’t relieve Hussein of the burden of coming clean—which, for god knows what reason, he was refusing to do. He thought he could keep stone-walling while playing the members of the Security Council against each other and keep us all in a permanent state of anxiety about what weapons he actually had. What he didn’t count on was America’s willingness, after 9-11, to err on the side of caution and assume that if he was refusing to fully disclose there was some reason for his deceptions. The consequences are on his head, and on the heads of his allies on the Security Council.

> Bush tried VERY hard to bring the international
> community around before the war, going back to
> the UN repeatedly and offering a zillion
> concessions.

LOL! Martin, you crack me up!

-Cf

Thanks, Christopher—I do my best.

But if it’s not true (let’s put aside the talking points of Kerry’s stump speech for one minute), then what was happening all those months when Powell presented resolution after resolution to the UN security council? Why was the President of the United States on the phone and inviting to the White House African and Latin-American heads of State to try and win their support for enforcement of UN resolutions? Why did the eventual invasion of Iraq happen MONTHS after the optimal time reccomended by military commanders?

Because, once again (now queue the Kerry campaign-issued laugh-track), Bush tried VERY hard to bring the international community around before the war, going back to the UN repeatedly and offering a zillion concessions.

Martin, Bush did not try hard at all to bring the UN into Iraq. He half-heartedly tried to get them to provide an imprimatur for a US invasion, and spent time on the phone getting supportive letters from what ended up being the ‘coalition of the opportunists’.

Blix said the Iraqis were cooperating, “On the whole, Iraq has cooperated rather well with the UN Monitoring. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception, it has been prompt,”

Saddam was not stonewalling to keep us all in a permanent state of anxiety about what weapons he actually had. Iraq repeatedly stated it did not have any WMDs. Bush just refused to believe it.