Backing out of the Forward Strategy
Monday, September 12, 2005
At RealClear Poilitics is an excellent raking over the coals of George Bush over his backtracking on the forward strategy of freedom. It's long, but read it all.
And yet, after inspiring the country with robust rhetoric about destroying our enemies wherever they are found – and self-consciously linking the war on terror to the great struggles in the past against fascism, nazism, and communism – President Bush incongruously urged the American people “to live your lives, and hug your children,” and expressed the hope that “in the months and years ahead, life will return almost to normal.” (Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People 9/20/01.) Return to normal? In months? This should have been a clue – a flashing neon sign could not have been more obvious – that President Bush in fact was not prepared to fight the war he promised America, and warned the world, he was going to fight. [bold added] Thus, instead of encouraging young people to enlist in the military, police, and homeland security forces, President Bush cautioned Americans about “unfair treatment or unkind words” towards people of Middle Eastern heritage. Instead of asking all Americans to donate some of their time, money, and energy on behalf of the war effort, he merely asked for “patience” with the delays and inconveniences caused by tighter security, as well as for the “long struggle” ahead. Even his proposal for a “USA Freedom Corps,” which President Bush revealed in his 2002 State of the Union address, was more reminiscent of Bill Clinton than FDR.The article is mainly valuable as a chronicle of Bush's backtracking. I do have a couple of large bones to pick with its author: (1) his contention that the basis of the forward strategy of freedom is merely a variant of the left wing's "root causes" theory of terrorism, and (2) his apparent advocacy of the military draft at one point.
As one who voted for Bush because I favored fighting back in the war being waged against us by al Qaeda and its sponsoring states, I am very unhappy that our President deserves such criticism. It is fortunate that voices like this -- who are criticizing the war effort for not going far enough -- are making themselves heard.
-- CAV
2 comments:
CAV, my read is not as skeptical of Bush as yours. We are close to a major accomplishment in our asymmetric war with Islamo terrorists, and our casualties so far will be judged light by almost any historical comparison.
Like British Redcoats had to stand down in early America, it may soon (after October) be time to begin removing some of our stand-up, uniformed men and women (IED targets) from Iraq.
What will remain is more than a skeletal military force under Iraqi government auspices reported by the press corp. Native, covert intelligence assets throughout the four-country area, 'friendlies', data bases for ongoing monitoring and updating, and a communications network. That is probably only one-third of infrastructure for the continued war against Islamo terrorism. More importantly, it will be geared to combat prior asymmetry.
Who says Iraq's duly elected government will never have to request UN military help? If the UN rponds by sending a joint-force subsequently butchered by Al Qaeda, the US will certainly join a full coalition (FRance and Germany) to help Muslims restore order under their own laws.
Terrorists will be convicted and publicly hanged at the hands of their Muslim brothers. The U.S. would not be an aggressor, stooge of Israel or bully of the world. So be it.
RealClear assumes Bush has to contain his options. He certainly does not have to incur unending IED casualties to be true to our announced aims.
Vigilis,
I agree with you that, militarily, we are winning in Iraq and can start sending troops home.
But this war has important nonmilitary dimensions that I am afraid Bush is forgetting about. Indeed, the whole rationale of his "forward strategy" accounted for many of these factors.
I said we were winning in Iraq militarily. This will not amount to a hill of beans, however, if Iraq becomes an Islamic theocracy. Or if we permit Iran to continue infiltrating the place for an eventual takeover.
And a successful outcome in Iraq will be rendered much less important, if not entirely moot, by our failure to stop Iran's efforts to build the bomb in their tracks. In fact, Iran should have already been attacked and beaten by now.
And how effective have our actions been with North Korea?
While Bush may have something up his sleeve yet, I seriously doubt it. He looks more and more to me that he is doing exactly what his father did: start a war and go home after a successful, but incomplete campaign. Only he is doing so on a global scale, and in "defense" of America rather than some inconsequential Arab country.
Gus
Post a Comment