Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Misguided Mission
King Features Syndicate, Inc. ^ | 12-19-03 | Reese, Charley

Posted on 12/19/2003 6:40:14 AM PST by Theodore R.

Misguided Mission

It's clear that the president's brain is occupied by the neoconservatives who surround him. It's clear from their writings and policy statements that the neoconservatives believe the United States can become the dominant power on Earth.

This is a bad judgment that is dangerous and could become lethal. This is why thoughtful people believe it is imperative to defeat George Bush in the 2004 elections. This wrongheaded policy, cooked up by academics and journalists, is not one that will merely embarrass the United States. It is a wrongheaded policy that could have dire consequences for the American people.

This wrongheaded idea that the United States can now dominate the planet rests on a number of fallacies. Let's look at them.

Fallacy No. 1 is the belief that the rest of the world will acquiesce to American dominance. Russia, China and India, not to mention the Islamic World, are not about to go quietly into the sunset. All three have large populations, large amounts of natural resources, and nuclear teeth. Their nuclear teeth mean that the U.S. attempts to bully them will always fall short of being effective.

Fallacy No. 2 is the false belief that the United States is as strong as it was in 1945. The truth is we are much weaker. The great manufacturing capacity that became the "arsenal of democracy" has been eroded almost beyond recognition. Our agricultural base has been eroded. Iron ore and oil supplies have been seriously depleted. We are in fact dependent on imports not only for energy supplies but for manufactured goods, strategic minerals, parts for our own strategic weapons systems, and increasingly for food. We are running high federal deficits, high trade deficits and high current account deficits. The value of the dollar is eroding rapidly.

Fallacy No. 3 is the false belief that our military is undefeatable. This falsehood has been fed by the fact that since Vietnam, we have used our high-tech forces to attack small, poor, defenseless countries such as Grenada, Panama, Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq. But even Afghanistan and Iraq, both dilapidated and lacking all modern military technology, have put a great strain on America's military forces. We do not yet have full control of either country.

Our strength is not in our ground forces but in our high-tech air power and the ability to coordinate the two. One breakthrough in air-defense technology could seriously weaken us, and you can be sure both Russia and China are working assiduously to make that breakthrough. Before you dismiss Russia, you should remember that we are now dependent on Russian spacecraft to reach the space station and that Russia, not us, has the world's largest mobile intercontinental ballistic missile force.

If we are so strong, why has the president tread so carefully in his dealings with North Korea? Why not bully them as he did Iraq? Why not issue ultimatums? For the simple reason that we would pay a very high price in American casualties if we got into a war with North Korea. Don't forget, it is their civilian sector that is poor. They have put most of their resources into their military.

In 1945, the United States was the strongest and richest country on Earth. In 2003, we are one of, if not the, most indebted countries on Earth. Foreign holders of that debt could wreck our economy simply by deciding to dump their holdings on the market. Domestically we are a divided people with a decadent culture, if you can even call it a culture.

Far from entering a period of dominance, we are entering a period of great danger. Most empires have lasted about 250 years, and we are approaching that number. What we need are not empty heads controlled by pseudo-intellectual ideologues but the smartest, wisest leaders we can find. Our future depends on it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © 2003 by King Features Syndicate, Inc.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: afghanistan; bush; charleyreese; china; culturaldecline; decadence; decliningdollar; empire; grenada; imports; india; iraq; manufacturing; nationaldebt; neoconservatives; northkorea; oneworlders; russia; serbia; spacestation; us
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-25 last
To: Theodore R.
Far from entering a period of dominance, we are entering a period of great danger.

we;; DUH! Thats why Bush is doing what he is doing, you dummy!

21 posted on 12/19/2003 6:15:12 PM PST by GeronL (Saddam is out of the hole and into the quagmire!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Electrician
we've been an 'empire' since , oh, about 1900 or 1920 or most likely 1945
22 posted on 12/19/2003 6:16:38 PM PST by GeronL (Saddam is out of the hole and into the quagmire!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
No, thats not the problem. We are entering a dangerous era and we are not 'dominant' (in his definition) and thats why his conclusions are the exact opposite of what they should be.

Problem: Other countries won't kowtow to us... Bush will defend us and Reese thinks we should surrender.

Problem: The world is a very very dangerous place....... Bush will defend us and Reese thinks we should surrender.

Its his idiotic conclusions.

23 posted on 12/19/2003 6:19:48 PM PST by GeronL (Saddam is out of the hole and into the quagmire!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Hey, at least Dean won't have those dreaded "neocons" running about in his administration. Just socialists and neomarxists. And don't worry. They aren't interested in America being "too powerful."
24 posted on 12/19/2003 6:26:13 PM PST by stands2reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
I disagree that Reese wants us to surrender. Charley Reese has been a stalwart voice of conservatism.

Yes the world is a dangerous place and we are not a dominant power. I think that what Reese is promoting is a warning that we should not invest a lot of energy living in the past but should face up to reality. We are not the same nation that had such notable achievements in the 1940s. In fact, it is doubtful that we could repeat those achievements today.

I think he is just saying that we shouldn't get so caught up in the successes we have had recently in Iraq and in re-living ancient history that we believe ourselves to be invincible. We aren't and, as soon as we start thinking that we are, that's when we are most likely to be taken out by an unexpected source.
25 posted on 12/19/2003 7:40:03 PM PST by DustyMoment (Repeal CFR NOW!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-25 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson