Charles R. Kesler/Claremont Review of Books
Republicans mean to win in 2008, they will have to separate themselves, gently but unmistakably, from the Bush Doctrine. While honoring the president and all that he has achieved in the overall war on terrorism, candidates would be well advised to find new language in which to cast the war against the jihadists. The truth is that the punitive and preventive war components of the Bush Doctrine remain vital to national security and eminently defensible before the voters. But so identified is the Doctrine with democratization and the war in Iraq that it is doubtful whether Republican candidates could persuade the electorate to discriminate neatly between the Doctrine's parts. Within its global campaign for democracy there are reasonable, modest initiatives that might be preserved, too, but so wrapped up are these with the overall discredited tone of idealism that it will probably be hard, once again, to distinguish them publicly.
Might it be possible to endorse the whole Bush Doctrine but promise to interpret it in a less militant and more cautious way? The paradox -- interpreting it more moderately than its author did -- would prove awkward. And does any candidate want to keep reminding the voters of his connection, his dependence on George W. Bus
Thoughts
History lesson
Submitted on April 12th, 2008 by AnonymousThe preemptive war in Iraq is a culmination (we hope) of a long history of the players of the Bush administration. Saddam was nothing more than a product of their intrusion in that region and exemplified it's failure. 9/11 and the US success in Afghanistan gave permission for this administration, through it's hand puppet President, to clean out it's own litter box and take 1/3 of the region's oil reserves off the market while supporting massive profits for the usual no bid suspects.
Now that we are almost inextricably involved in this larceny we can only hope that the Iraqi people will somehow benefit from our actions, but even that must be weighed against a tragic number of innocent deaths and maimings. History will not be kind to us in recording this atrocity, nor should it be.
couple of quick thoughts
Submitted on April 11th, 2008 by chief28.retFirst off, yes, I am a former member of the Military establishment (25+ years USAF) so some will consider me an expert and others a biased, brainwashed puppet. That being said,
"Should America rule out preemptive wars against it's enemies? The only way to answer that question is to ask "Are we willing to risk the consequences of not preemptively striking?"
You see, as the worlds only true superpower, we control the environment...except in our own backyard. there are absolute unique differences in the manner you fight a defensive war on your homeland (which is where we would fight it if we did not act preemptively) than it is to fight in a location, time, and manner of our choosing.
We are spoiled in America. we don't have Hamas firing rockets into our hotels in Beverly hills, or improvised explosive devices going off on downtown streets in New York, or buses exploding across from schools in Dallas.
We have to act preemptively because we can't stand the consequences of not acting preemptively.
And while I'm on my soapbox, let me talk for a moment about my comrades in arms. We are the worlds only superpower because 1) We have the most technologically advanced military in the history of the world, and no one really wants to mess with us when it comes right down to it; 2) because we have the best trained military on the planet, which is why we are working so hard to teach other countries how we do things; 3) and because our sons and daughters (mine included) deserve nothing less than to honor the memory of our fallen soldiers who have given us the rights we seems to want to berate when we don't get our spoiled little way.
I thank God daily that we, not Russia, or China, or Iran or anyone else can use preemptive strikes against us because I know that the consequences would be significantly more horrid than the alternative.
Preemptive war
Submitted on April 11th, 2008 by janmbIf we look at who the real intellectual engines of the IRAQ war , we'd see a web of people who are not simply the statesmen they appear to me but card-carrying members of the disaster capitalism complex -- shareholders, board-members and directors of companies that profit directly and enormously from war and other disasters --
Countries are too sophisticated to think they can win a war against the USA. With the arsenal the USA has--if any country had a notion to send a missle our way--we could blow them into space and they know it.
Even bin Ladin is happy we are going bankrupt fighting "terrorism" and the lies about WMD's in IRAQ.