Fresh Agitprop Here!
Posted on 10/03/2004 5:44:40 PM PDT by churchillbuff
[E]xperts, from both sides of the political spectrum, say the brutal experience in Iraq has eroded many elements of what has come to be called the "Bush doctrine," leaving the United States with less flexibility in the war on terror. ...[snip] The violent insurgency in Iraq, which has tied down 140,000 U.S. troops, has all but removed Americans' stomach for a similar pre-emptive engagement against an enemy who has not actually launched or prepared an imminent attack on the United States.
Iraq "will leave a long and damaging legacy," said Fred Ikle, a senior government arms control expert for decades who has argued that the United States must be more willing to use military might to achieve its goals. "It will inhibit us more than is good for our future. We fumbled."
Ikle was one of the founders of the Project for the New American Century, a neoconservative group that has long pressed for a more muscular American military posture, [snip]..."The appetite for this kind of action in the country is pretty low at the moment," said Max Boot, a senior fellow in national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. ...[snip]"If, by some miracle, Iraq looks better in a few years, maybe there will be greater interest in the idea," said Boot.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Fred Ikle is no Chamberlain-like dove. His honest assessment concurs with the fears that I've had from the beginning of this misguided invasion that distracted us from the war against Osama and his evil network.
What a crock! This is what the lefty press did to us in Vietnam and it is what they are trying to do now, with the assistance of John F'n Curry! This is his "Global Test" bullshit!
"....the brutal experience in Irag..."
People seem to have absolutely NO perspective for judging how this war is going. The invasion took how long? A few days, a week? And even with that they were already talking about it being a quagmire. We've lost how many people? A little over 1,000. Not yet even half the number that died in a few minutes on 9/11. There is absolutely NO chance that the terrorists will drive us out militarily. They are dying in large numbers almost daily. The scuttlebutt from the 'world of Jihad' is that people are starting to lose faith in the idea of Jihad. I'll grant that Iraq has been a brutal experience, for the enemy. I fear that people today are so spoiled and so ignorant that they are simply clueless.
We're going to have to get hit again. I hope you and yours and me and mine aren't in the wrong place at the wrong time, and I hope that George W. Bush is the Man in Charge if it happens. And after the re-election please.
Pardon my laughing my ass off. With all repect to the families involved who have lost loved ones....if this war in Iraq is what is now to be considered brutal, we have might as well bring everyone home now. While we're at it lets get the hell out of Asia too as a war with China would involve a death rate in the upper 5 figures or low six figures.
Well, I agree with you that I've never considered Mr. Ikle to be a Chamberlain-like dove...
But for someone with a handle like "churchillbuff", I would expect you to note that attacking Iraq after being attacked by factions from Afghanistan makes at least as much sense as attacking Germany after Pearl Harbor.
It's not as if AQ populates only areas of Afghanistan, and as soon as you find the old battered remains of bin Laden, and hang his head on a pike outside your mote, the war will be over.
What we've got (whether it was our original intention or not) is a terrorist magnet in Iraq. In addition to setting millions of people free in a strategic area of the Middle East, we're drawing in hundreds or thousands of would-be airplane pilots or self-exploding bus passengers-- not to mention gradually causing them to rethink this "Allah will guarantee our victory" mindset.
Time to concentrate on the bigger picture, compare casualty rates to that of any other war (if you must), and have a little faith.
Sure, I guess the US population has more of a stomach for a nuclear 9-11, rather than attacking and pre-emting it, right?
This is another biased article, trying to undermine America's resolve.
You are always so successful in finding and posting such articles. :/
"Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment. Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us. Our nation -- this generation -- will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.
The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them. (Applause.)
Fellow citizens, we'll meet violence with patient justice -- assured of the rightness of our cause, and confident of the victories to come. In all that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom, and may He watch over the United States of America. "
Fresh Agitprop Here!
In our continuing fight for freedom, for America and our constitution and against totalitarianism, socialism, tyranny, terrorism, etc., Free Republic stands firmly on the side of right, i.e., the conservative side. Believing that the best defense is a strong offense, we (myself and those whom I'm trying to attract to FR) support the strategy of taking the fight to the enemy as opposed to allowing the enemy the luxury of conducting their attacks on us at home on their terms and on their schedule.
Therefore, we wholeheartedly support the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes on known terrorist states and organizations that are believed to present a clear threat to our freedom or national security.
...how quickly the sheeple forget....
I simply cannot understand how Bush became so enamored of Wolfowitz and Perle. The looks of their wild eyes and gestures reminds me of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.
Gosh, this sure explains why Libya is dismantling its WMD programs, and Pakistan has come clean, and...
Horsepucky, in other words. No despot wants to be "next".
Right. One of the worst mass murdering tyrants in our life times has been removed from power, and it is a sad day. Un-freakin-real.
Neville was hoping to get a 'memorandum of understanding' from Saddam.
Perhaps Saddam can sign it for him in his prison cell.
Right on. I never once heard him say, "If it wont take to long or get anyone killed, then we might attack if France says its ok". We loose over 45,000 people each year on the highway. The military looses a good bit each year in training, liberty accidents ect. We lost 6,800 on Iwo Jima. What did we loose fighting ourselves at Sharpsburg/Antiedem? (A heck of a lot more then 1000 and that was in a day)
I think in the grand scheme of things, the liberation of Iraq into a free nation, will have much more impact on us in 30 years then one island in the pacific (although combined they were extreamly significant) or especially all the traffic accidents that happened. What did they die for, trying to get to the office on time?
So no, I dont think it would be wise to attack every other country that we dont like right now, that would be stupid, but I dont think the lesson we will learn from this down the road will be not to do it. I also think it is interesting that when I watched Kerry trying to answer the questions about N. Korea, it sounded that he would put us on the course for inevitable military action. If I was a hippy type Kerry fan, I would have been really upset to hear my canidate saying how we were going to get tough with N. Korea and we were totally not going to pull out of Iraq until later and then when President Bush was asked about attacking other countries, I sure hope we never have to again. Who is the more peace loving here? But it wasnt just talk, I honestly think Kerrys behaviour would get us into more military action then we could handle. Then he could drive a swiftboat across the Pacific and tell us all war stories from his 45 seconds he spent in Vietnam.
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.