Pessimism abounds these days and if you are one who understands the gravity of the threat of our enemies in the War on Terror you have reason to be pessimistic Too many don't even believe we are really in a war. Our leaders who know we are at war are taking a minimalist approach to the war. No one with access to a bully pulpit is effectively articulating what is at stake in the war. God bless President George W. Bush but even as he has had the courage to take the punches of the opposition he still has failed to communicate effectively with the nation and to commit fully to victory.Read the rest at DonaldSensing.comI am reminded of the 1970s - a time when not only many in America were rooting for communism but when many actually believed we had lost the moral high ground and that it would be democratic capitalism eventually left on the ash heap of history. Fortunately we found a leader who effectively reminded us of the goodness of our system and values and who had the courage to commit to victory. We are fortunate that he was able to lead us to victory by committing the necessary resources - and thereby prevented us from ever having to commit the ultimate resources of total war against communism.
We are there again. We are really nowhere new. Today many of our own doubt our nation's moral standing, many are rooting against our victory, and many believe we have already lost. Once again we need a leader who reminds us of who we really are as a nation, who can communicate articulately what is at stake, who like Bush is willing to take the punches, and who is willing to commit the resources necessary to achieve victory before we find ourselves in the corner with only the resource of total war left to use. I am waiting for that leader to emerge to inspire us to believe what is good about us and to inspire us to victory.
So with all of that in mind, with our minimalist approach to terrorism (Islamic militancy, jihadism, your term of choice...) and the lack of national unity we are seeing in our government today, the following is the speech I'd like to hear and the plan I'd like to see:
Take up the [Spreader of Liberty's] burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.
Take up the [Spreader of Democracy's] burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"
where we ate leeks and preferred slavery to freedom, as the tribes complained to Moses.
Yup.
3 things about this:
"Today many of our own doubt our nation’s moral standing, many are rooting against our victory, and many believe we have already lost."
We had the will of the world with us after September 11th. We lost this (and part of our own) due to lies, a war of aggression, and ineffective leadership, along with a Greedy Congress. No speech can get this back - time and honesty can (which this speech does not have enough of). And by the way - can you point me to the many Americans who are rooting against us? Please show me more than a handful of people marching with paper mache heads.
"Bush understands the threat but it seems only McCain and Lieberman understand that we must go all out."
And this goes back to exactly the problem we are facing now - the insults towards people who think differently. You cannot convince 50% of the people (or 70% who disagree with the war) when language like this brackets any speech.
When rational ideas have been dismissed over the past few years with "last throes", "cut and run", and a collection of other phrases, no speech can convince the American people. When good men - on the opposing side - have been cut down with so much abandon over a period of YEARS, there needs to be more than speeches about liberty to bring back unity.
Not a bad speech, I wouldn't be suprised if some portion looks something like that. Here are my thoughts, which are a mix of what I think needs to be done, or why Bush will not follow your lead:
1) Afghanistan is woefully underprotected. We currently have ~10-15,000 troops in Afghanistan, and to really make this country safe and create the 'free market' we're going to need a lot more.
2) Desiging the free market in both nations (I&A) appear to currently be failing. In my eyes, much of this comes from wasteful spending, which has given funds towards projects that were either poorly planned, or never finished.
3) Oil companies are going to freak out if Bush decides he wants to embargo countries with oil that support terrorists (BTW: why not also the Saudis?). For that reason, I don't think any politican will take the chance and risk that funding. Though I agree it should be done.
4) I think one thing that we need to rethink in the military is how the budget is used. The military budget is like the budget of any beaurocracy... it's bloated and poorly managed. Closing military bases (last year?) was a good start, but there are billions being spent on military projects that are pure pork, pure failures , or not neccessary for the current battlefield. It won't happen, but it would be nice if a president would address this spending, so that more funds are available where we need them.
5) I agree, but for some reason (5) isn't happening. I also wish that America would reach out to other impoverished countries outside the middle east: Africa, South America etc, but there are many places where we help dictators flourish because it is economically beneficial. I wish we would end that practice in keeping with (5).
"We had the will of the world with us after September 11th. We lost this (and part of our own) due to lies, a war of aggression, and ineffective leadership, along with a Greedy Congress."
This is demonstrably untrue. Core factions in the Democratic Party (now not merely ascendant but dominant) opposed any action against terrorism arguing that:
1. We "deserved it" because we are rich and Muslim nations poor, Israel exists, they were "little Eichmans" etc.
2. Terrorism was and is a "nuisance" more suited to law enforcement and politically expedient payoffs of the terrorists than actually going after them which would be (and is) tedious, messy, brutal, and expensive (politically, morally, and financially).
3. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, terrorism is "the wave of the future" which cannot be defeated anyway in the modern world so we will just have to live with it; as a corrolary the threat is not that large and "more people died on the highways than in 9/11."
Chief exponents of this view included (then on 9/12 and now): Jimmy Carter (who views Palestinian missiles raining down on civilians as "not terrorism"); Michael Moore, Norman Mailer, Susan Sontag, Bill Maher, and Joe Biden who opined that the bombing of Afghanistan was a war crime and should be punished.
As for the international scene, Palestinians danced in the streets, handed out sweets, and fired off guns in celebration, as did Muslims in the California Town of Lodi and all over the world. On 9/12 the US Ambassador to the UK was reduced to tears during a call in show where the audience and host celebrated 9/11. Le Monde ran a front page story entitled "Who has not dreamed of this day?"
Europeans jealous and angry at US success and relevance, and appeasing Muslim minorities with a long history of terror opposed any action by the US in Afghanistan or elsewhere. NATO's troops in Afghanistan are useless, the Dutch have tea with the Taliban instead of killing them. NATO itself was useless in the Balkans and is merely a fig leaf.
If you think terror threats are overblown and should be shrugged off, this is understandable (most Dems/Libs/Media and Euros think this and have always thought this). If you don't then you'll want action to stop the threat (Reps/Jacksonians/Populists think this). This divide has always been there and can be traced back to the State Dept. in the early 70's covering up Arafat's now proven orders to murder our Diplomats in Sudan.
The popularity of Communism in the USA peaked in the 1930s. By the 1970s, it was something of a joke. I've heard people say that the CPUSA probably survived only on the dues of FBI informants, and I am not sure they were joking.
Perhaps what was really meant here is that many in America were tired of our hopeless struggle to prop up the corrupt and feckless South Vietnam government. I suppose this can be "proven" with the same rhetorical strategy that allows all opposition to the Iraq War to be support of Islamofascism (a position now held by a majority of the American public, perhaps understandable in light of the fact we seem to be supporting one Islamofascist side over another as opposed to creating a secular state of any stripe).
OK, I guess, as long as you don't mind my calling you a supporter of the vicious racist and anti-Semite Robert Mugabe, since I have nowhere seen you support a war to depose him. (Likewise Burma, etc.—this game really isn't hard to play.)
It's worth pointing out, too, that neither Bush nor McCain nor Holy Joe really support going all out against Islamofascism. That would entail canceling the tax cuts, increasing the size of our armed forces greatly as of yesterday, training civilian reconstruction experts, and hanging everyone associated with Abu Ghraib (albeit in a dignified manner). What we're talking about here is going all out against the domestic opposition to the war with a silly dog-and-pony show. The Shia's we are now supporting, the Sunnis we are now opposing (have we always been at war with Eastasia?), and the Al Qaeda jihadis aren't going to be intimidated by 20,000 fresh lambs to the slaughter.
Biden voted for the war in Afghanistan - can you tell me where he mentioned it might be war crimes? I can only find where you say it, but Lexis/Nexis is not my friend.
http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=229598
His moronic "high tech bully" quote is about as close as you can come.
In Paris, Le Monde’s leading editorial on 9/12 was headlined “We Are All Americans.”
The only references I can find to your quote - are quotes by you. My French is very poor though.
Michael Moore thought the war in Afghanistan was about oil.
Bill Maher - aside from his stupid quotes about courage- was for the war in Afghanistan, and Iraq. He's since recanted about Iraq.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/15/lkl.00.html
Mailer wanted Afghanistan to self-police before we went to war, and also was quoted that a military solution alone would not work - which (gasp!) is what we're all saying now.
We're left with Susan Sontag, who gave aid and comfort to the enemy during the vietnam war, and Jimmy Carter, who we all (sadly only now) realize has gone off the deep end. And Ward Churchill - who I cannot find one supporter of what he says, only that he has the right too.
How about announcing that we will reduce US troops stationed in Europe until the number of continental-European troops serving in Iraq/Afghanistan is greater than or equal to the number of US troops in Europe? Save money and/or get some more international troops involved Iraq/Afghanistan. Win-win for me.
> It's worth pointing out, too, that neither Bush nor McCain nor Holy Joe really support going all out against Islamofascism. That would entail canceling the tax cuts, increasing the size of our armed forces greatly as of yesterday, training civilian reconstruction experts, and hanging everyone associated with Abu Ghraib (albeit in a dignified manner).
No, it wouldn't.
Islamofascism depends on oil revenues. Oil fields and the related infrastructure are relatively small and basically unpopulated. The current US military could easily take and hold them.
Yes, we'd have to give some to the Chinese. We might want to give some to the Euros.
The war is expensive because we're trying to make nice.
BTW - Punishing folks associated with Abu Ghraib has no effect on Islamofascism.
I have to agree with Andy F. The Euroweenies and others would make an outraged noise if we did that, but let's face it: it would be in the whole world's interest for Middle Eastern oil to be controlled by a stable, civilized power than by a bunch of thoroughly unpredictable, nutcase barbarians.
More on the military fantasy front from Andy F. We have trouble safeguarding the pipelines just for Iraq. Let's multiply that by half a dozen other countries and a local populace that is now 110 percent against us.
I suppose the irony is lost that it was Ted Rall and Michael Moore who said the war was all about the oil.
Whether Abu Ghraib matters depends on whether you accept that there is a war of ideas here in which reducing the support of extremists within the Islamic population counts. You can even see the use of Abu Ghraib as a militia recruitment tool in Bryan Preston's report from his right-blogistan-endorsed trip to Baghdad.
Futile military action as a virility enhancer is so 2004. Get with the program guys.
> We have trouble safeguarding the pipelines just for Iraq.
That's because we're spending the vast majority of our resources on other tasks.
> Whether Abu Ghraib matters depends on whether you accept that there is a war of ideas here in which reducing the support of extremists within the Islamic population counts.
AJL assumes that the Islamic population actually cares.
I'm sure that someone is arguing "Those Americans are horrible. We cut off heads and they have sluts rub fake menstrual blood on our heroes." but I doubt that it works out the way AJL assumes. (Yes, cut off heads is more scary, so folks may say "hmm, I'll go with those folks because the Americans are too weak", but AJL's argument requires that it be seen as better behavior.)