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

Skip to comments.

Rumsfeld: Non-interventionist libertarians would make world ‘less safe’
Campus Reform ^

Posted on 09/08/2012 1:55:25 PM PDT by oliverdarcy

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld attacked libertarians on Wednesday, suggesting their anti-interventionist positions would result in a more a dangerous world if put into practice.

“I have no doubt that if the people of that persuasion who are against, who are non-interventionist if you will... if they prevail I think the world will be a less safe place,” Rumsfeld said in an exclusive interview with Campus Reform earlier this week.

(Excerpt) Read more at campusreform.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: blog; collegeblog; libertarians; rumsfeld

1 posted on 09/08/2012 1:55:31 PM PDT by oliverdarcy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: oliverdarcy

And a little restraint would go a long way too.


2 posted on 09/08/2012 1:59:48 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oliverdarcy

We can’t afford to keep intervening. And we certainly can’t play the world’s policeman, intervening in places that are not our direct interest.


3 posted on 09/08/2012 2:01:18 PM PDT by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oliverdarcy

Non-American people have been complaining about how America thinks it’s the world’s policeman and how it’s sticking its nose everywhere.

Me, I think it’s time the world cop went on vacation for about a decade. Watch what happens; for starters, all those European states will be forced to dismantle their comfortable welfare states.


4 posted on 09/08/2012 2:04:19 PM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oliverdarcy

He has this right. There are too many others bucking to take the world police role from the USA, and they all have a bent for global totalitarianism.


5 posted on 09/08/2012 2:04:25 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oliverdarcy

According to whom? A college blog?

How about posting from the actual sources.


6 posted on 09/08/2012 2:05:10 PM PDT by humblegunner (Pablo, being wily, pities the fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oliverdarcy

Thank you Mr. Rumsfeld.


7 posted on 09/08/2012 2:06:10 PM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oliverdarcy

Allowing people to not be in padded cells for their entire lives makes people less safe too. So does letting them eat in restaurants or driving cars or engaging in trade. Notwithstanding these risks, we don’t require people to be in padded cells and we let them eat out, drive, and all sorts of other things. Even though it makes the whole world less safe, Mr. Rumsfeld.


8 posted on 09/08/2012 2:11:50 PM PDT by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tbw2

I suspect that if Reagan had just started his first term when 9/11 happened, we would have been in and out of Afghanistan before the end of his second term. Its had to say whether he would have messed with Iraq but if he did, it would have been long since over.

I certainly don’t think we would be playing games with Pakistan and its unlikely that we would have had any involvement in Libya.


9 posted on 09/08/2012 2:12:21 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: oliverdarcy

I don’t think we should be non interventionist but when we do intervene we should just leave a big pile of ruble and let them deal with it.


10 posted on 09/08/2012 2:12:42 PM PDT by Lurkina.n.Learnin (Ignorance is bliss- I'm stoked)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurkina.n.Learnin

I’m not anti war.

I’m anti nation building.


11 posted on 09/08/2012 2:15:55 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
Notwithstanding these risks, we don’t require people to be in padded cells and we let them eat out, drive, and all sorts of other things.

Isn't that exactly what Rumsfeld is saying? "Let them eat out, drive, all sorts of other things"...leaving the police (or whoever) to intervene when necessary, to protect others?

A strict policy of non-intervention leaves the rest of the world to the thugs -- thus becoming a world that is most assuredly not in our best national interest.

12 posted on 09/08/2012 2:22:22 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: All

He is right.

Libertarian foreign policy would be a disaster. RonPaul Liberaltarians are even worse.

Peace through Strength is the best way to stay at peace, not to mention is spurs hi tech job spinoff and puts our engineers to work on constitutional priorities.

Afghan we had to go into, after 911. Iraq, wasn’t as strong a case, but it would have been negligence for Bush to ignore the Intel that he was given.

However, after it was obvious that the WMD either wasn’t there or was sneaked out to Syria, we should have given Iraq 6 months to stabilize their government, and we should should have been gone.


13 posted on 09/08/2012 2:27:24 PM PDT by rbmillerjr (Conservative Economic and National Security Commentary: econus.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lurkina.n.Learnin

Absolutely! My son, who builds the bombs that makes the rubble is “sick of screwing around in the sandbox.”


14 posted on 09/08/2012 2:27:30 PM PDT by Himyar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Himyar

Our world would be a hell of a lot safer if we were protecting our own borders.


15 posted on 09/08/2012 2:30:52 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: oliverdarcy

In the runup years to WWII, while Hitler was expanding, two world leaders saw it, discussed it, prepared for it. FDR and Churchill.

At the time, the GOP was non-interventionist. WWI had been awful, and within a few years nothing was really settled. Hence the non-interventionists decided it best to stay out of Europe’s centuries long wars.

Had the US jumped into Europe sooner, it may have hastened the defeat of Hitler. Nobody knows.

Since then, the GOP has shifted poles, now favoring “peace through strength” as Reagan advised.

The GOP anti-war, non-interventionists are whackos.

I would argue that any war worth fighting is worth starting and finishing fast, minimum dead Americans, maximum destruction and dead enemies.

The idea of saving muslims’ lives is misguided.

After WWII the Japanese knew who won the war, knew why the US dropped nuclear bombs on their citizens.

We owe muslims no less certainty.


16 posted on 09/08/2012 2:44:31 PM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01
Correct. More rejection of the Founding Fathers by those that claim to champion them, I see.
If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it. If we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.

George Washington

17 posted on 09/08/2012 2:46:14 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: oliverdarcy

If we don’t intervene, somebody else will...and we’re not going to like the results.

The only thing that we need to do is make sure we have a clear objective. After 9/11, we had one...and then it got diluted because Bush was too timid and too easily browbeaten by the left to defend his positions or to defend Rumsfeld, for that matter.

The other thing that it means is no kissing of Muslim posteriors. Muslims are the enemy; the other enemies (China, Russia, etc.) have some interest in survival, but the Muslims simply don’t care and would take the whole world down with them. So we’ve got to work out a way of making sure that doesn’t happen, while at the same time not letting either Russia or China take our place as the big dog.

And that’s what Obama is allowing to happen.


18 posted on 09/08/2012 2:54:35 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

The Father Of Our Country was a wise man.


19 posted on 09/08/2012 3:00:45 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: oliverdarcy

Whatever happened to avoiding “nation building?”

I’m all for kicking @ss when needed, but it seems to me that direct and full-on wars in 3rd world countries hasn’t gotten us much.


20 posted on 09/08/2012 3:03:12 PM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

I agree on nation-building. Especially, muslim natons. They are incapable and undeserving of our assistance. It’s a waste of both money and lives.


21 posted on 09/08/2012 3:04:59 PM PDT by rbmillerjr (Conservative Economic and National Security Commentary: econus.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: truth_seeker

Well that’s the Commie/Collectivist view of WW2. The other view is more nuanced and favors an America 1st strategy instead of the FDR/Churchill Fascism vs Fascism. Hoover and Patton alluded to the real mistake of WW2....we should have finished off Stalin before being involved in the Pacific or Europe. I wager that eventually we will know the truth about the machinations by FDR/his Commie Adm. and the idiot Churchill’s manipulations of our country into allying with the evil totalitarian Stalin....murderer of > 100 million innocents!


22 posted on 09/08/2012 3:25:35 PM PDT by iopscusa (El Vaquero. (SC Lowcountry Cowboy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: oliverdarcy

Let me try to figure this out. With special operations personnel on the ground and a fleet of B-52s, we toppled the Taliban within a few months of 9-11. Even Ron Paul voted for the use of force for that mission. But was that the end of it?

No.

Since our amazing fast, relatively cheap and total victory in Afghanistan, we have lost, I don’t know, is it 10,000 dead and 50,000 badly wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, for which we achieved nothing in Iraq and less than that in Afghanistan.

All of our allies are leaving Afghanistan, and we’re scheduled to leave the next following year, and the Afghanis are already making their deals with the Taliban.

The Arab spring has resulted in Islamicist governments in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt, the prospect of an Islamicist government in Yemen, and a civil war in Syria with an outcome that is in doubt.

Iran is this close to having the nuclear bomb and has the means to hit Israel with nuclear bombs.

Oh, and least I forget, we now sending National Guard units to Africa.

Thank goodness the libertarians aren’t in charge of our foreign policy, otherwise things wouldn’t be safe.


23 posted on 09/08/2012 3:43:40 PM PDT by Redmen4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr

By his decision to get us into Iraq, Bush risked the Republican majority. We subsequently lost the House and Senate in ‘06, and the White House in ‘08. We are now saddled with a mountain of debt and Obamacare. The upcoming election looks like a toss-up right now. This country may fall into real economic decline, the suspension of civil liberties, communism, and even the possibility of secession. With a weakened U.S., Iran will be emboldened. Rumsfeld fired the economist who refused to testify to Congress that the War in Iraq would be cheap and pay for itself. If nothing else, Rumsfeld owes the nation an apology for being so very wrong about that war. Bush and Obama both owe the nation apologies for “mission creep” in Afghanistan, a place that we could never have done anything about (other than kill the bastards, which we did, thank you, within a few months of their attack on us.) But, really what will an apology mean if we lose this fall’s election.


24 posted on 09/08/2012 3:55:04 PM PDT by Redmen4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: iopscusa

“Well that’s the Commie/Collectivist view of WW2. The other view is more nuanced and favors an America 1st strategy instead of the FDR/Churchill Fascism vs Fascism. Hoover and Patton alluded to the real mistake of WW2....we should have finished off Stalin before being involved in the Pacific or Europe. I wager that eventually we will know the truth about the machinations by FDR/his Commie Adm. and the idiot Churchill’s manipulations of our country into allying with the evil totalitarian Stalin....murderer of > 100 million innocents!”

Among conservatives with opinions worth consideraion, your view of “the idiot Churchill” is very clearly a minority one.

Are Buchanan and Hitler your favored guys in this?


25 posted on 09/08/2012 3:59:14 PM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: oliverdarcy

Sorry, Rummy, any point you had is lost in the fool’s errand of nation building.


26 posted on 09/08/2012 4:00:02 PM PDT by TigersEye (dishonorabledisclosure.com - OPSEC (give them support))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oliverdarcy

I’m not a non-interventionist libertarian, but I don’t think we should build bridges and hospitals in Iraq and Afghanistan, either.


27 posted on 09/08/2012 4:43:51 PM PDT by oblomov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tbw2

We can’t intervene and limit our options with limiting, self-defeating rules of engagement. We should’ve kicked ass and started a mass migration of refugees towards Iran, Syria, and Pakistan to destabilize them.


28 posted on 09/08/2012 4:45:10 PM PDT by ChiefJayStrongbow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: oliverdarcy

Realistically speaking, there might be a dozen or two places around the world of enough concern for US military involvement. But we are in over 100 deployments.

This means that 75% of our overseas deployments are just wasted on hand holding and mostly because nobody wants to summon them home.

I got to see a great example of this in the 1980s, with a multinational humanitarian mission sent to Mali, Africa. To start with, for minimal work for maybe 20 men, an entire 500 man battalion was sent. The mission was finished in a few weeks.

But nobody would recall them. Finally the battalion commander asked the brigade commander to personally ask the Pentagon, but nobody there would make a decision. After six months of torpor, the brigade commander finally ordered them home himself.

Nobody objected. Nobody cared.

But that is the condition of a lot of these deployments. Nobody wants to order them home because it *might* “make waves”. And the vast majority of people think there is a *reason* for the deployments. Often, the only reason is just inertia.


29 posted on 09/08/2012 5:09:42 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (DIY Bumper Sticker: "THREE TIMES,/ DEMOCRATS/ REJECTED GOD")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oliverdarcy
Many libertarians are in favor of a strong national defense, and a military that can defeat any adversary. They are less in favor of foolish nation building, or supporting governments overseas that don't need or deserve our troops defending them.

Rumsfeld's point would have more weight if the administrations he was involved with didn't themselves ignore many brewing problems and fail to intervene when they could have. No doubt he's got a reason why the US should intervene in some cases but not others, and his reasons for non-intervention probably sound just about the same as the libertarians' reasons.

30 posted on 09/08/2012 6:55:57 PM PDT by freeandfreezing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Bush had withdrawn most of the troops from Afghanistan, it was winding down, waiting for Iraq to stabilize. It was Obama who insisted that Afghanistan was the “right war” and instituted the surge in Afghanistan.


31 posted on 09/08/2012 8:29:49 PM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Redmen4ever

“By his decision to get us into Iraq, Bush risked the Republican majority.”

Leaders don’t send troops to war based on whether it is politically expedient. The Intel Bush got made it imperative that we go to Iraq.

His error was not in going to Iraq, but in not getting the hell out after the WMD was not found.


32 posted on 09/08/2012 8:55:21 PM PDT by rbmillerjr (Conservative Economic and National Security Commentary: econus.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr

I suspect you are more of a national security conservative than I am.

I appreciate that, in spite of opposing Bush’s war on terror (whatever that refers to) prior to his election, Obama wound up basically following through on the plans that had been laid out during the Bush Administration.

Just as General Schwarzkopf said that he, as a theater commander, had to be a strategist, a tactician, and a logistician, in addition to being a general and a soldier, so too does the leader of a democratic nation engaged in a “long war” (as is envisioned in certain military circles) have to lead the people, see to it that the economy is running well, that the finances of the country are in good shape, and that the families of the country are functioning as they need to be.

But, Bush and Obama have demonstrated that they are about as competent of fulfilling the obligations of a leader of a democratic country engaged in a long war as Schwarzkopf found Saddam to be as an adversary.

If our country really is at risk because of something over there, we are now much weaker than we were in 2001 in terms of running our military personnel down, wearing out our weapons systems, using up our reserves of munitions, exhausting our allies, emptying our treasury, destroying our economy, and disrupting family formation.

And, we face the real prospect of a neo-Marxist radical being re-elected President.


33 posted on 09/08/2012 9:34:32 PM PDT by Redmen4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: truth_seeker

That’s the problem, isn’t it? For every WWII, where we absolutely have to win, there’s a half dozen Koreas, Vietnams, Iraqs and Afghanistans, where we just get sucked into a mess that even when we win, we lose.


34 posted on 09/08/2012 9:42:37 PM PDT by Redmen4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: okie01
A strict policy of non-intervention leaves the rest of the world to the thugs -- thus becoming a world that is most assuredly not in our best national interest.

You nailed it. If we stop "meddling", eventually it will literally be us against the rest of the world or suffer the rest of the assimilation that the Left has been pushing. The same folks that think we should stay the hell home are also griping about how we are losing our sovereignty and don't realize that the libertarian "solution" will insure we become exactly like the rest of the world - in all its worst aspects.

35 posted on 09/09/2012 2:34:21 AM PDT by trebb ("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Redmen4ever

“we are now much weaker than we were in 2001 in terms of running our military personnel down, wearing out our weapons systems, using up our reserves of munitions, exhausting our allies, emptying our treasury, destroying our economy, and disrupting family formation.”

None of which can be blamed on the Iraq military phase, which was over quickly and with a loss of about 200 lives. If we we leave after that phase, none of your listed factors, come into play.


36 posted on 09/09/2012 4:34:22 AM PDT by rbmillerjr (Conservative Economic and National Security Commentary: econus.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr

That was the plan (at least as it was stated to the public). We were supposed to be replaced by the blue helmets. In and out, like the Persian Gulf War. And, wasn’t that the idea with Afghanistan? But, in both places, we got dragged into the mission of transforming the nations into viable democracies. Mission creep. The civilians thinking that the military, which is designed for one purpose, namely, destruction, could be used, along with “soft power” (i.e., international welfare), for another purpose, construction.

Let’s turn the clock back fifty years, to Jack Kennedy getting us into Viet Nam. It is thought, whimsically, that he would have avoided the mission creep. This is wishful thinking and contradicted by the fact that it was he who ordered the assassination of Diem. But, Jack Kennedy had the good fortune to depart the White House which shifted the mission creep to Lyndon Baines Johnson. Riding the ghost of JFK, Baines got re-elected in a landslide. But, two years later, the Republicans won the mid-term elections (outside of the still one-party South) and four years later, won the Presidency. That “go any where, bear any burden” thing really didn’t endear the Democrats to the American people.

On the other hand, having a strong national defense that precluded a military option to the communists, and waiting for the inevitable collapse of their system, we won the Cold War without having fired a shot. Ronbo saw the big picture. Which is why he supported a bulked up military and also refused to allow the country to get sucked into unwinnable situations like Lebanon.


37 posted on 09/09/2012 8:46:08 AM PDT by Redmen4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr

That was the plan (at least as it was stated to the public). We were supposed to be replaced by the blue helmets. In and out, like the Persian Gulf War. And, wasn’t that the idea with Afghanistan? But, in both places, we got dragged into the mission of transforming the nations into viable democracies. Mission creep. The civilians thinking that the military, which is designed for one purpose, namely, destruction, could be used, along with “soft power” (i.e., international welfare), for another purpose, construction.

Let’s turn the clock back fifty years, to Jack Kennedy getting us into Viet Nam. It is thought, whimsically, that he would have avoided the mission creep. This is wishful thinking and contradicted by the fact that it was he who ordered the assassination of Diem. But, Jack Kennedy had the good fortune to depart the White House which shifted the mission creep to Lyndon Baines Johnson. Riding the ghost of JFK, Baines got re-elected in a landslide. But, two years later, the Republicans won the mid-term elections (outside of the still one-party South) and four years later, won the Presidency. That “go any where, bear any burden” thing really didn’t endear the Democrats to the American people.

On the other hand, having a strong national defense that precluded a military option to the communists, and waiting for the inevitable collapse of their system, we won the Cold War without having fired a shot. Ronbo saw the big picture. Which is why he supported a bulked up military and also refused to allow the country to get sucked into unwinnable situations like Lebanon.


38 posted on 09/09/2012 8:46:13 AM PDT by Redmen4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Eva

>>It was Obama who insisted that Afghanistan was the “right war” and instituted the surge in Afghanistan.

Exactamundo!


39 posted on 09/09/2012 8:49:16 AM PDT by Redmen4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Redmen4ever

“Ronbo saw the big picture. Which is why he supported a bulked up military and also refused to allow the country to get sucked into unwinnable situations like Lebanon”

Well, Reagan actually did get sucked into Lebanon, under the auspices of the Blue helmet to boot.

The only difference was Reagan was smart enough to get out quickly.


40 posted on 09/09/2012 10:01:10 AM PDT by rbmillerjr (Conservative Economic and National Security Commentary: econus.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Police intervention does not keep you from getting killed in a car accident nor does it prevent you from getting Salmonella at a restaurant and dying from that, either. The world has risks, some of which simply have to be accepted.


41 posted on 09/09/2012 12:15:37 PM PDT by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
Police intervention does not keep you from getting killed in a car accident nor does it prevent you from getting Salmonella at a restaurant and dying from that, either. The world has risks, some of which simply have to be accepted.

Tell me, now. What in the hell does that have to do with a discussion that once was concerned with a policy of non-intervention and isolation?

We have wandered off into non-sequitur land...

42 posted on 09/09/2012 3:15:31 PM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on parade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: okie01

There are many things that make the world less safe, such as eating in restaurants or driving cars, but Rumsfeld isn’t interested in ending them (at an enormous cost in liberty). He is, however, concerned that a non-interventionist policy would also make the world less safe, at its own cost in liberty. (Such as allowing a President an unchecked power to murder American citizens, without any due process or review.) You might be happy with trusting Obama to have assumed this power and to use it wisely, but I don’t. Informed consent of the governed is a bit hard to come by, when the topic is secret military operations around the globe (especially including those in which witnesses might well be killed).


43 posted on 09/09/2012 6:35:57 PM PDT by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
You might be happy with trusting Obama to have assumed this power and to use it wisely, but I don’t.

Of course, I don't trust Obama to make these decisions. Nobody should.

But I did trust, for example, George W. Bush.

Points being:

1. The U.S. should be prepared to intervene militarily anywhere in the globe whenever U.S. interests are threatened. A quasi-libertarian policy of isolation is, ipso facto, antithetical to the nation's best interests.

2. It is imperative that we elect presidents we can trust to make these decisions correctly -- and pursue them with resolution.

44 posted on 09/09/2012 7:02:40 PM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on parade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: oliverdarcy
Rumsfeld, who worked under the President George W. Bush administration as secretary of defense, is often hailed as one of the key architects of the the Iraq War which began on March 20, 2003 and continued for nearly a decade.

Possibly the reporter meant something else. The Iraq War began in August 1990 with Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Even if it had it actually begun in March, 2003, we'd still be a year short of a decade.

A poor example, probably. I cannot think of an intervention where the stakes weren't more clearly in U.S. strategic interest, nor one more successful in effecting regime change. And, due to Bush's perseverance, more effective in eventually actually accomplishing nation-building. Iraq is not a good example. Iraq is a corner case.

More typical of the nation-building Shangrila is Afghanistan, although we'll never hear it because Afghanistan is, after all, 0bama's "right war" whereas the one Bush won for him and for which his political handlers have feebly attempted to claim credit for victory, was named the "wrong war" during 0bama's campaign in 2008. Nevertheless, here we stand, more than a little through 0bama's strategic mismanagement, to do for our friends in Afghanistan what we did for our friends in Vietnam - leave them at the mercy of their bitter enemies.

These tend to be women in whose faces acid has been thrown for the temerity of teaching girls to read, NOW being notable for its cowardly silence in the affair; and whose students are likely to be returned to the horrors of female circumcision and the burqa. It is they who will pay for the crime of the United States giving them a torturing taste of freedom.

They are likely to be ignored as Vietnam's Boat People were ignored, as being outside the narrative of the Left and hence unworthy of the status of human beings. Unless, of course, Bush can be blamed, and the Democrat political spin machine is currently at work full-time on the project. There is, however, that inconvenient series of 0bama statements on the topic that must be buried first, and they will be. The image of 0bama picking out Predator targets is altogether too reminiscent of McNamara and Johnson doing the same with pushpins on a map in the Oval Office to be anything but bitter in the eyes of those of us who remember the latter, for which Nixon eventually took the blame at the hands of the same media who would now exculpate 0bama from the blood on his hands.

It is likely to be decades until this is told as it should be, but the evidence awaits a pen less filthy than that of the current world media. The dead mourn a folly that was a step too far - one cannot force people to be free. We can remain a haven for those who aspire to it and are fortunate enough to reach our shores. For the rest there is only apology...and mourning.

45 posted on 09/09/2012 7:47:26 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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