Me: So, what did you think of the President’s 9/11 speech?
My son’s friend: That was terrible, wasn’t it?
Me: What did the President say that he should not have said and what did he not say that he should have said?
My son’s friend: Uh, I didn’t really listen that close, but I heard on NPR that it was really bad.
There followed a quite interesting discussion in which, in the end, we both agreed that Bush was doing all he could do, but not communicating it very well.
Along the way, my son’s friend parroted what I consider a brilliant Democrat party line. The Democrats, who have heretofore been rightly accused of have no idea what to do, have hit upon a winning line — “America should either commit whatever resources are necessary to win the war in Iraq or they should get out.” This is brilliant, because it will absolutely resonate with folks like me, who made the exact same argument (in my case as a teenager) relative to Vietnam.
But there is a fundamental difference between Vietnam and Iraq. In Vietnam, we stuck our noses in the middle of a civil war. There was no danger to the United States from a withdrawal, in which we basically admitted we shouldn’t have been involved to begin with. The Viet Cong were not about to start launching planes into our skyscrapers. In Iraq, quitting will have far more serious consequences.
I opposed our entry into Iraq when we entered Iraq (as Bookworm will testify) but I will admit that the one great benefit of our war in Afganistan and Iraq is that it has kept our enemies quite busy launching attacks over there, rather than on American soil.
However, Bush is in a no-win situation. The American public simply will not stand for the kind of all-out war that would be required to “win” in Iraq. Specifically, the American public will not support a nationwide draft and the American public will not support a war that involves large numbers of American casualties. On the other hand, Bush knows he cannot withdraw, because a withdrawal will be seen by our enemies as an extraordinary sign of weakness and will result in renewed attacks on American soil. Bush is doing as much as the American public will let him do (and more, which is why he is so unpopular), knowing full well that, for America’s sake, he may not do less.
I suggest that all who support Bush’s efforts ask those who oppose Bush what they would do differently. If they say they would win or withdraw ask them if they are willing to do what is necessary to win (they won’t be) and whether they are willing to deal with the inevitable attacks on American soil that will result from unilateral withdrawal (they won’t be). Only if we confront what sounds like an appealing line can we hope to prevail in this fight in November.
Filed under: Uncategorized
[...] [Read more and discuss…] [...]
DQ, I want to introduce the idea (which you may have) that there are many sources of information, in this case for your young people, but for voters also in general.
There is a lot of information in today’s world, much of it on the Web. Use it to learn about the Iraq conflict. It’s important.
The false and fatal storyline of the Dems/MSM is that the Iraq front doesn’t matter. ‘Iraq’s a farce put on by a fool.’
An untrue, dangerous position, disproved by detailed sets of objective facts.
Any modern youngster will use the Web much as we older people once resorted to everyday conversation. Young people today can have access to front line, multi faceted views of the world. Use such resources! (And then show adults how much MORE you know!)
NPR, or the MSM, is not a trustworthy authority, unless it is checked with other sources. Young people still have the chance to create critical, inquiring minds. Many adults, addicted to the MSM, have lost theirs.
I don’t actually know what the American public will or won’t support, so I hesitate to posit very broadly. But I do know this: if indeed the American public will not support a war that has some cost in casualties, or the kind of all-out war that’s necessary to win in Iraq, or the possibility of a nation-wide draft, then America’s best days are behind it. It’s hardly George W. Bush who’s in a no-win situation: we all are.
Occasionally you have to suck it up, here on Planet Earth. Regrettably it’s not a kindly world – never has been. It’s been ruled directly or indirectly by the application or the threat of the aplication of force since the first hand was closed into the first fist some tens of thousands of years ago.
It would be lovely if the flower powered idealism of the sixties had somehow changed all that, but it didn’t. Most folks around the world regard our high-toned, democrat principle of refusing to fight as an invitation to pop us in the mouth, unopposed.
The sad fact of Vietnam is that the North was very grateful for my generation’s help in ending our participation, said “thanks very much,” waited for us to leave, and proceeded to exterminate a generation of those who lived in the south and who didn’t particularly wish to be Communist.
Communism, y’see, was a fighting faith.
Islam, as its adherents keep demonstrating to us, is also a fighting faith. They have been telling us two things about business now for over a decade: they mean it, and they mean to put us out of it. As I have said before, their frankness on this point is admirable. Our refusal to believe them is past the merely naive and well embarked on the suicidal.
Going into Iraq to take a part of the battle to their territory was a good move: they spent too much time in the preceeding decade on other people’s turf: Khobar Towers, embassies, barracks, USS ‘Cole,’ WTC the first time, ‘Achille Lauro,’ etc., etc. This war did not start on 9/11, it started a long time before that.
So I see no problem with taking it to them in their house a bit. But if the American people truly do have a problem with this, and truly won’t support it, then we have a real problem, and we are no longer the country that closed out WWI, and won WWII and the Cold War.
It takes work, takes money, takes time, takes lives – and if we’re not willing to do that, then the American century is over and the barbarians win.
Thanks to CAIR, the democratic lefties and most of the moonbats in popular entertainment, we ARE NOT the same country that fought and won WWII.
Unless we adopt their attitude — make sacrifices so our country can win, put the right people in office, stop listening to the MSM — we’re doomed.
We have a choice — stand up against ALL islam (I don’t think you can distinguish between ‘radical’ islam and everyday islam, they tend to support one another); force the President and Congress to build a fence and shut down immigration (ALL immigration, especially from middle eastern countries); and take back our country from the lefty moonbats —
or else we should all just learn to speak arabic and start reading the Qu’ran.
You don’t need either a draft or huge number of American casualties to destroy the enemy. Those are not the limitations upon Bush’s choices. Bush has a relatively simple path to victory, but he isn’t willing to take it. It is not that he doesn’t have the choice, he just won’t take it, or the people he listens to won’t take it and Bush is unwilling to override them.
What is necessary to win is removing the restrictions on the military and imposing restrictions on the media. If the US wins the propaganda war, then the guns will tell the rest of the story. The guns will tell the rest of the story even if the US stalemates terroists on the propaganda front. But with more restrictions and focus on the military’s wrongdoing, the more invasive the influence of enemy propaganda. With less restrictions on the media, the more advantage accrues to the side that knows how to manipulate the media, which would be terroists and Islamic clerics issuing fatwas and statements on tv.
The politicians may not be willing to do what is necessary, but that is only because they don’t have any idea of America’s core strength. So they can’t take advantage of it, they can’t lead it, they can’t raise it up with inspirational speeches.
I don’t know why people still believe that you can only usher a winning willpower through the draft. That’s one of those invalid choices that create a false situation.
It’s obvious Bush isn’t doing all he can. That combined with his lack of communication, is what makes people depressed in America. If Bush was doing everything that he could be doing, people wouldn’t dislike his policies so much.
What would I do differently?
1) I would never have invaded Iraq. I would have continued Southern and Northern Watch and bombed targets at will over time.
2) Begining on 9-11 I would have begun a determined effort to increase the size of the armed forces. I would have paid for it with a $1 a gallon surcharge on gasoline and a national sales tax. I would never have cut taxes the way Bush did.
3) I would have focused our anti- terror efforts on homeland security and helping nations help themselves as we are doing in PI, Indonesia and Africa.
After Afghanistan I would have declared victory and gotten away from the whole War on Terror rhetoric. The rhetoric would have focused on stability in the middle east, solving the Palestinian problem and building an sustainable economy in the middle east that was not dependent on foreign labor. I would not have cared so much about democracy in the short term, because that has to come from within. Stability and getting Arabs to do what Westerners tell them to do is more important.
Finally I would have made John Lehman SECDEF and sent Donald Rumsfeld packing. After forcing him to speak out in favor of a pay increase and repeal of the USFSPA………..
That would have been a good start.
Oh yes, I would have passed a program of national service. Want to go to college……..serve your country first!
That’s why I could never be President. I would need to impose these things on the country for its own good.
I have heard that canard “We had Saddam in a box” so often that it’s convinced me that many do believe in an alternate universe. Fact is, Saddam was on the verge of breaking out of that box, thanks to impending votes the “Oil-for-Food” UN and to the incessant meuling of those Liberal/Left people that claimed (falsely) that the U.S. was killing 10s of thousands of Iraqi babies with its sanctions…yes, those very self-same people that today claim that they supported keeping Saddam “in a box”.
Hi Skippy-san,
I think you’ve managed to define a program that would be even less popular than Bush’s own program! Actually, I like most of what you suggest, but one phrase concerns me, “Stability and getting Arabs to do what Westerners tell them to do is more important.”
Getting Arabs to do what Westerners tell them to do is probably impossible, and will certainly not be accomplished with anything less than assertion of extreme power, approaching genocide. Rhetoric, no matter how focused, will not work. You make the mistake of thinking of our enemies as rational people. You think we can talk them into accepting stability as a goal and doing what we tell them. I respectfully disagree. Probably the most we can hope is that we can apply enough pressure to keep them out of our back yards.
Skippy is also part of that other politlcal spectrum of the people on the opposite side of the Democrats, that I was refering to.
Sure, there are individual differences, but primarily I notice a pattern. That pattern is basically, are you for an overwhelming offense into the Middle East or do you favor sitting back and building up infrastructure and the status quo? Those who favored forward basing, prefered Iraq. Those who favored fortifying rear echelon bases, did not want to go into Iraq. I’m not including Democrats btw, they don’t count.
Liberal vs Conservative, so to speak. The risk of action vs the gain of victory.
What would be a good thing Bush should do, is go across the Syrian border, take a small town, and then hold it. Invite reporters there. Allow the Syrians to complain and talk in the UN. Act like you are thinking of backing off, act like you are weakening. Then launch surprise attacks against more Syrian targets.
It is classified as a raid, in military terms. Go in, hit them, and get out. Guerrila Warfare, the US is quite good at it when the military is allowed to do it.
Unlike invasion, occupation, or big arse war campaigns, this requires little setup time, no huge armored columns, no Congressional approval, no UN approval, and it nets such a neat bag of great benefits.
Not only doesi t make Bush unpredictable again, it will also help him with negotiations with Iran, and raise his popularity by at least 10 percentage points.
Don Q,
I think there are ways to accompish what I am talking about. This road to ruin started in 1956 when the United States did not support the British and French in Suez and so Nasser got a pass, and the present era drearily dawned.
I for one do not really care for Arabs as a people or for their religion. I wish they were all still under the thumb of the European empires that we failed to support.
If Bush had never invaded Iraq, he would have been one of the most popular Presidents in history. Iraq is the main drag on his popularity. Saddam was never the threat he was portrayed to be and while the sanctions were an issue, it would have been possible to keep him in the box.
As for my program, well the net effect would have been improvement in the economy over the long haul because the budget would have been balanced and my increased defense spending would have been a spark to fire up the rest of the economy. Even if it did not work, we would not be 1.7 Trillion dollars in debt to our Chinese enemies………..
Keeping him in the box requires deploying American troops to Saudi Arabia and Kuwaitt. Otherwise known as stalemate.