Posted on 10/23/2001 5:09:54 AM PDT by GotDangGenius
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:01:45 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
October 16, 2001 -- THE "domino theory" of the '50s and '60s explained why the U.S. needed to arrest communist expansion lest one country's fall lead to its neighbor's collapse as well. In his folksy fireside chat, Franklin Delano Roosevelt explained that were his neighbor's house on fire, he'd lend him his garden hose. The "lend lease" program of wartime aid to Britain which eventuated was thus forever distinguished from simple foreign aid.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
That is the model we must follow. There is simply no alternative. Yes, I realize and I am certain Morris realizes as well that presently we need to trod with political tepidness to allow the immediate "tumor excision surgery" to go on smoothly-(Afghanistan/Pakistan/India/Iran/Islamic world/Arab nations) all mixed in one couldn't be more of a dicey set of circumstances to have to deal with, so talk of annihilation may not be the right PR terms for the Administration to use, (although, it was a stated policy of MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION- founded on the principle that our opponent cared about their behinds- we can't use that so easily with suicide bombers), the Administration has been very clear that if you harbor terrorists your fate will be the same as theirs. But this is actually easy in Afghanistan- the Tallibanana crowd can't win against the coalition- can't really threaten the civilized world. few people know that China has a very similar military psychology- they will hurt you even if it means they get killed in the process. China has more in common with terrorists than the public realizes.
My comment on Morris's piece is that what happens if terrorism is linked to China or clearly requires we take out Iran- perhaps even Saudi Arabia? Maybe Libya?
The presupposition of this "war on terrorism" is that we go after those who harbor it. Either we back channel lean on nations or we go in and wipe out the governments harboring terrorists. That Doctrine realistically hinges on the assumption that nations with the power to actually hurt us in significant ways militarily, such as China or North Korea, perhaps Iran, would not harbor terrorists. That assumption is eventually where we will be challenged most. We had better think this Doctrine through to its end game and be laying down the framework for accomplishing it in its ultimate form.
Essentially, the message, if you carry out Morris's train of thought and foreign policy model to its end, is that this "cancer cluster" in Afghanistan is a cake walk- the real war on terrorism comes when or if a militarily/politically significant nation harbors terror- the means to carry out our Doctrine then is scary.
I know Condy Rice is likely the smartest dam NSA ever to have the job. I sure hope she has people working on "chemo- therapy" so to speak (no chemical weapons pun intended)- I mean an alternative way to deal with the possibilities that may lie ahead.
Let's put it this way. China has a built in lobbying group in Congress. Anytime they don't like something the U.S. does, they call the local Shanghai American CEO of a company that has gone into those joint venture deals for factories in China and press this: "Tell your government to stop this or to do that or we will make it very hard for you here." In 10 minutes phones start ringing in hundreds of congressional offices.
If this Administration is actually serious about the war on terror, and thus far I believe they are, I anticipate that the actual legitimate criticism that may be leveled at Bush, as it was with Clinton- Clinton sold out to China and the like for campaign contributions. Bush has the potential to sell out America for the sake of trade and American businesses in China.
But note something, because its phenomenal what is occurring- OPEC is laying off their pricing. I haven't a shred of evidence to indicate they want lower oil prices and I have every reason to believe that with the mumblings of Saudi Arabia and Iran about our military efforts in Afghan, they should be using oil as a bargaining tool. So, why are oil prices down so drastically? Don't give me economic baloney as an explanation, I used to be a futures trader- ain't gonna fly with me or anyone who knows anything about oil pricing.
I suspect, and this is only a guess and it also gives me reason to be seriously impressed with the Bush team, that they have used back channels to engineer a drop in price.
If the Administration actually did that, then they have likely thought through the end game of the war on terrorism and are pursuing some sort of model that the WH is not hailing on about that could also be used in dealing with the potential of terrorists to now look for nations to reside in that are not exactly blood brothers of the U.S., but whom are militarily stout- like China and North Korea.
Let's dam well hope the Bush team has done their homework. I sure hope they have toroughly considering the points Morris brings up and the end game it requires us to accomplish if the circumstances present themselves. This is gonna be a VERY VERY long war.
I, for one, would be very dissappointed if the end game means we make excuses for some countries that harbor terrorism because those countries could punch us in the nose if we attempted to take them out.
His chances would be better if he hadn't eagerly helped clinton get re-elected.
By the way, Dicky has been a very astute political analyst. Virtually everytime he has been on Fox and given his opinion on the actual strategy a candidate should take, he's been virtually dead on. It really has been amazing to watch him. Obviously, he bases his political musings on his polling business, but this piece of foreign policy is very insightful in placing into concrete terms the task we have ahead of us if we are serious about a war on terrorism that doesn't end with Osama's last facial expression being raised eyebrows as a 5,000 pound bunker buster pokes it's nose through his cave and the last sound he hears is the timed denotator clicking.
I believe Morris is saying a little more here in the political advice department as well- he's saying- in essence- here's a public support style of communication that can be used- cancer. You don't cure cancer until "it's all gone."
The media is so darned focused on Afghanistan- well, I realize that's the news story right now, but it wouldn't hurt to roam around the war on terror story a bit to get the public focused on the other tumors that exist.
First, we take out bin Ladin and the Taliban. We concentrate on that because we can get everyone to agree to that. Next, we hit Iraq or Syria -- but only after Afghanistan is neutralized because several of our "allies" against Afghanistan will change sides if we hit that nation concurrently. That would make victory in Afghanistan problematic.
Meanwhile you make nice about the second target -- not committing yourself to an attack, but not ruling it out. After the second nation goes down, go after the third -- and so on -- until you get to Saudi Arabia.
Ultimately, the House of Saud has to go. Perhaps the Hashimites should be maneuvered back to controlling Mecca and Medina. But if you are Bush, you do not even hint your ultimate plan until it is too late for them to do anything.
He is darn insightful and definately very good at presenting a focused, easily understood message. See any Republican campaigns lately that displayed such talent?
Also, it seems from your post that you have an aversion to toes. May I ask, what is your preferred sexual fetish?
They may have camels in Saudi Arabia, but that's not where the royals get their brains from.
Why would we need any ANWRs to pull off replacing the House of Saud? As long as things are done sequentially, we need no more force than we have now. We save them for last. The Taliban are gone. Saddam Hussain is gone, and the Iraqi government friendly to us. Ditto Syria, Sudan and Somalia. Then reveal the depth to which Saudia Arabia was involved in supporting bin Laden and the Taliban. We support a Hashimite coup in Saudi Arabia.
To whom does the House of Saud turn? Public opinion in the US and Western world is now against them. The Muslim world has no viable military threat, and the only neighborhood power that could oppose us (Jordan) is being bought off with the greatest prize in their world.
As long as you treat each state sequentially it is straightforward.
I do hope the White House will *not* lose its drive in rooting out terrorism. Bush has stated that this will be a long and hard fought battle, one which will not be won overnight. I am hoping that he sticks to his word and as of today I think he will, but just following the travels of one of the hijackers (Atta) proves how many other countries we must be ready to confront. As Morris stated in the article, the Bush-Rice team must be ready to remove the cancer before stitching up the problem. It's the only solution. If not now, when?
Well, you spoke what I was reluctant to utter. Missing from your team is Powell. He is the one guy who makes me worry (a little) that we'll look for a peaceful, negotiated end to terrorism. Which IMO could never happen.
heh heh
Powell's "moderate Taliban" nonsense of late has me a wee bit nervous also. When Bush gets to the terrorism fork in the road, which no doubt he will, I hope he decides to follow Rice's path.
She'd make a fine VP for Bush if Cheney decides not to run in 2004 imo. Plus she'd knock Hillary clean out of the running. Hahahaha!
His chances would be better if he hadn't eagerly helped clinton get re-elected.
You can say what you want about Morris, but he'll run political circles around any of our republican pundits. That guy is damn smart and has a boatload of common sense (aside from working for Clinton and sucking toes. LOL).
Dick Morris is the toe man. If he'd have done something to remove the clinton cancer instead of helping it propagate, most of this BS wouldn't be happening to us.
People might actually give a $hit what he has to say, too.
WOW! What a great PR idea.
That's how we should deal with the UN loonies:
"After September 11th, civilized nations no longer find acceptable any United Nations initiative that attempts to protect nations harboring terrorism. The United Nations must avoid becoming an unwitting accessory to terror."
That should piss off Kofi-banana to no end.
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.