| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"~TRUTH 666~" |
| Date: |
27 Dec 2003 02:16:57 PM |
| Object: |
GEORGE BUSH: MAN OF THE DECADE |
GEORGE BUSH: MAN OF THE DECADE
DALLAS -- With all due respect to two great institutions, the U.S.
military and Time magazine, the latter got it wrong when it picked the
former as its "Person of the Year" for 2003. President George W. Bush
was the person of the year, perhaps of the decade and more.
That man in the White House, the commander in chief of the 1.4 million
American soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen, changed the world for
better or worse when he sent American troops into action in Iraq. Time
calls our military "the bright sharp instrument of a blunt policy."
But the policy is the story. The president decided to roll the dice,
and we are the dice -- the men and women in uniform more than the rest
of us.
The president is a bold, decisive and overconfident crusader, a
self-righteous leader, a dangerous man. He changed the rules, ignoring
the post-World War II history of alliances, multilateral institutions
and containment. His rationale for the invasion of Iraq is called
"pre-emptive war" in the White House and "preventive war" in other
capitals. But, in fact, it is more than that.
Saddam Hussein's Iraq was not a nice place, but we did not go there to
pre-empt or prevent anything. We went there to change the regime and
make a new country in our own image. If Iraq were truly a threat -- to
us or its neighbors -- it would have become the pre-emptive target of
its neighbors, tough guys like Turkey, Israel or Iran. Remember: In
1981, Israeli jets destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor because it may
or may not have been capable of being used in the development of
nuclear weapons.
The American "forward strategy," as the president sometimes calls it,
was not about threat. It is a crusade strategy, not so much to stop
terrorism as to change the culture of the place, to promote freedom,
democracy, free-market capitalism and the American Way, with absolute
confidence that the American Way is superior to all others.
For a long time, U.S. military strategy had been to position our great
military power to deter upheaval and war in parts of the world we
considered essential to our own national security. Bush, with
practically no strategic background, was frustrated by that approach
and considered the terror at home on Sept. 11, 2001, an indication
that containment and alliances were no longer adequate to combat new
threats to our tranquility and prosperity. The military, he concluded,
was not there as a deterrent; it was there to use, bluntly. To
paraphrase Marshall McLuhan on media, the military is the message. The
military is the strategy.
Will it work? I think not. It is based on a cherished American
assumption that everyone in the world wants to be us. They don't. They
sure would like to have many of the things we have, but there are just
as many American things they don't want, beginning with education for
women. Watching events evolve (or unravel) in Iraq, I sometimes try to
draw analogies. What would we do, for instance, if a fundamentalist
Muslim force, say the Taliban, were able to conquer part of the United
States and took American women out of schools and forced them into a
kind of house arrest? And what would we do if they told us how lucky
we were to live that way, because their values or their God was better
than ours? Would we fight? Would we resist? I hope so.
That is not going to happen -- and a big reason we are safe is the
sharpness of our military. But the Bush crusades have sent our troops
into the deserts and the holy places of people we don't know or
understand. And they are going to hate us, as we will more and more
come to hate them. Our bright military will be tied down. What will
they be doing? Protecting themselves against locals; "force
protection," in military terms.
This is the crusade our leader wanted. George W. Bush is the man of
this year of living dangerously. His assumptions and strategy should
be the issues of the election in 2004. One reason Howard Dean has done
so well so far as the election season began is that he recognized that
single fact: Bush and his bold record are the issue. When and where
does this crusade end?
It is sobering and then some to think about what George W. Bush would
do in a second term.
COPYRIGHT 2003 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
http://www.uexpress.com/richardreeves/
.
|
|
| User: "Seawolf" |
|
| Title: Re: GEORGE BUSH: MAN OF THE DECADE |
27 Dec 2003 09:05:57 PM |
|
|
"~TRUTH 666~" <corporation_666@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:51061492.0312271216.57bd729c@posting.google.com...
GEORGE BUSH: MAN OF THE DECADE
DALLAS -- With all due respect to two great institutions, the U.S.
military and Time magazine, the latter got it wrong when it picked the
former as its "Person of the Year" for 2003. President George W. Bush
was the person of the year, perhaps of the decade and more.
That man in the White House, the commander in chief of the 1.4 million
American soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen, changed the world for
better or worse when he sent American troops into action in Iraq. Time
calls our military "the bright sharp instrument of a blunt policy."
But the policy is the story. The president decided to roll the dice,
and we are the dice -- the men and women in uniform more than the rest
of us.
The president is a bold, decisive and overconfident crusader, a
self-righteous leader, a dangerous man. He changed the rules, ignoring
the post-World War II history of alliances, multilateral institutions
and containment.
When these proved ineffective.........
His rationale for the invasion of Iraq is called
"pre-emptive war" in the White House and "preventive war" in other
capitals. But, in fact, it is more than that.
Saddam Hussein's Iraq was not a nice place, but we did not go there to
pre-empt or prevent anything. We went there to change the regime
And this is bad why????
and
make a new country in our own image. If Iraq were truly a threat -- to
us or its neighbors -- it would have become the pre-emptive target of
its neighbors, tough guys like Turkey, Israel or Iran. Remember: In
1981, Israeli jets destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor because it may
or may not have been capable of being used in the development of
nuclear weapons.
Rmember the 10 year war between Iran and Iraq?
The American "forward strategy," as the president sometimes calls it,
was not about threat. It is a crusade strategy, not so much to stop
terrorism as to change the culture of the place, to promote freedom,
democracy, free-market capitalism and the American Way, with absolute
confidence that the American Way is superior to all others.
And we should be concerned that the "American Way" is not superior to all
others. After all, in a little over 200 years we have gone from being a
little backwater problem for England, into the most powerful nation on
earth. Name one other nation or empire that has accomplished that..........
For a long time, U.S. military strategy had been to position our great
military power to deter upheaval and war in parts of the world we
considered essential to our own national security. Bush, with
practically no strategic background, was frustrated by that approach
and considered the terror at home on Sept. 11, 2001, an indication
that containment and alliances were no longer adequate to combat new
threats to our tranquility and prosperity. The military, he concluded,
was not there as a deterrent; it was there to use, bluntly. To
paraphrase Marshall McLuhan on media, the military is the message. The
military is the strategy.
Will it work? I think not. It is based on a cherished American
assumption that everyone in the world wants to be us. They don't. They
sure would like to have many of the things we have, but there are just
as many American things they don't want, beginning with education for
women.
True, many nations don't want their women to be educated, therefore, by
deduction, I find that the writer of this article believes that is okay for
these nations to deny women the right to education. After all, only
American women should get education, the rest of the world should leave them
"barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen", correct? And since you posted this
article, are we all to believe that this is also your position on the issue?
Watching events evolve (or unravel) in Iraq, I sometimes try to
draw analogies. What would we do, for instance, if a fundamentalist
Muslim force, say the Taliban, were able to conquer part of the United
States and took American women out of schools and forced them into a
kind of house arrest? And what would we do if they told us how lucky
we were to live that way, because their values or their God was better
than ours? Would we fight? Would we resist? I hope so.
That is not going to happen -- and a big reason we are safe is the
sharpness of our military. But the Bush crusades have sent our troops
into the deserts and the holy places of people we don't know or
understand. And they are going to hate us, as we will more and more
come to hate them. Our bright military will be tied down. What will
they be doing? Protecting themselves against locals; "force
protection," in military terms.
This is the crusade our leader wanted.
This is the "crusade" that was forced on our President and the
American people on 9/11. To believe that those responsible give a damn
about anything but their own beliefs is idiotic. They believe that the only
way to paradise is to kill an infidel, and they will stop at nothing to
achieve their goals.
Should we wait and let them come to us? Kill our families and friends? Or,
should we take the battle to them, let them know that we will not sit idly
by while they slaughter innocent people?
George W. Bush is the man of
this year of living dangerously. His assumptions and strategy should
be the issues of the election in 2004. One reason Howard Dean has done
so well so far as the election season began is that he recognized that
single fact: Bush and his bold record are the issue.
What issue? That a murderous dictator has been removed from power and now
resides in American captivity? That an insane Bin Laden, must rely on
obscure references on video tapes and audio tapes to get his "messages" out?
When and where
does this crusade end?
When the terrorists are dead.
It is sobering and then some to think about what George W. Bush would
do in a second term.
Better get used to it. He's gonna win no matter what, cause your hero
Clinton will do anything to prevent any Dem from winning in '04, that way
his old lady can run in '08........
Brent
COPYRIGHT 2003 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
http://www.uexpress.com/richardreeves/
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
