Posted on 06/01/2014 6:50:05 AM PDT by Kaslin
The hell we didn't.
One of the reasons we voted for Bush was that the promised us no "nation building".
And we fell for it. Of course what option did we have?
When it came to rebuilding Iraq and Trashkanistan, we were like poor Flounder in Animal House. We effed up. We trusted him.
Limited government? He called on the military to fight global warming. He’s attempting to alter our foreign policy emphasis, not decrease our involvement.
ummmmmmmmmmmmm
fl
Iraqi intelligence was involved in the Oklahoma City bombing, an act of terrorism with massive loss of life on American soil. If he needed a causus belli, that was it and it went unmentioned. That told me right there that Bush was part of the problem and that a war in Iraq would likely turn out to b another Vietnam, defeat snatched from the jaws of victory, and at terrible financial and spiritual cost.
Helping Jihadists take control in Libya and Egypt, and trying to in Syria is not conservative. Real conservatives believe in standing by allies, and only using force for our own national interest.
Even more to the point, we were in a state of war with Iraq already. The first Gulf War ended in a ceasefire, one which Saddam violated regularly. The 2003 invasion was just a continuation of that.
That war was lacking a legitimate causus belli from a conservative perspective. Iraq taking over Kuwait was none of our business.
On the contrary, taking over Kuwait and threatening Saudi Arabia threatened the free flow of oil to the rest of the world. That could ruin the world economy, and thus our own. Having Saddam in control of that resource was unacceptable. There was a clear American interest at stake, unlike say Kosovo or Libya.
In any case, even if you don’t agree with that, we were in a state of war, rightly or wrongly, and had been for 12 years when W acted.
No it didn't. Saddam would have sold it just as he always had.
That could ruin the world economy, and thus our own. Having Saddam in control of that resource was unacceptable. There was a clear American interest at stake, unlike say Kosovo or Libya.
Yeah, that was the pitch. What really took Saddam down was that he threatened to trade oil in Euros.
In any case, even if you don’t agree with that, we were in a state of war, rightly or wrongly, and had been for 12 years when W acted.
My point was not to the legality of the war but to the point of the article, which ignored what conservatives would call a legitimate cause for war. There's a difference you know.
It is worth repeating.
Confused about Obama’s foreign policy? With Clinton’s foreign policy?
You are likely familiar with the “Hierarchy of Needs” - Things a human MUST have in order survive: for a minute, for an hour, for a day, for a week, for a year, etc. Until those needs are met, he or she cannot look for less important things. Air, water, food, clothing, shelter, etc .. All can get ranked according to a human’s most important priorities.
Now consider every foreign policy decision, speech, foreign leader, foreign trip (well - except vacations), and foreign award or recognition Obama has chosen since 2008.
Think about his hierarchy of hatred, then look at his decisions. His administration’s decisions.
In every case, when given a public choice, Obama has chosen American over Israeli;
American (if democrat-donor or government-enhanced) over republican/capitalist/energy/white/male/oil/red state;
European-republics over America;
European-socialist governments over European-republics;
3rd world socialist-republics over European-socialist governments;
socialist-selected governments over socialist-elected governments;
socialist-dictatorships over socialist-selected governments;
communist governments over socialist dictatorships;
Islamic republics over communist governments;
Islamic secular states over Islamic republics;
Islamic dictatorships over Islamic secular states;
Islamic-tolerant states over Islamic dictatorships;
Islamic religious states over Islamic-tolerant states;
Islamic Sharia states over Islamic religious states;
Islamic fundamentalist states over Islamic Sharia-compliant states;
Radical Islamic bands over Islamic fundamentalist states.
Theodore Roosevelt’s foreign policy: “Speak softly, and carry a big stick.”
Barack Obama’s foreign policy: “Mince around noisily, and show them your little stick.”
But prior to intervening the Carter Doctrine was modified by the Powell Doctrine, which establishes the criteria that should be met before intervening. So using the Powell doctrine we could intervene in Kuwait but because of the Powell Doctrine, US forces could not go on to Iraq and remove Saddam.
Later in the GHW Bush the Wolfowitz Doctrine emerged(leaked), named after Paul Wolfowitz who then served as Defense Undersecretary for Policy and he would become Deputy SecDef under Bush.
The Wolfowitz Doctrine would later be called the NeoCon Doctrine or the Bush Doctrine and it was used to invade Iraq and remove Saddam.
Which was silly given GHWB's multiple comparisons of Saddam to Hitler. Kind of like if we had pushed the Nazis back to the Rhine and stopped there.
That's just rhetoric that was used to influence public opinion.
The article documents quite correctly how neocons destroyed conservationism. Via the “Bush Doctrine” and “Nation Building”.
Which is why I suggest the Hugin Doctrine—only go to war if you intend to destroy the enemy regime and kill their leaders.
That sounds like the MacAuthor doctine “There is no substitute for victory”. Victory meaning total defeat and unconditional surrender of the enemy.
Kill people and blow shit up. No nation building and humanitarianism allowed.
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.