Where's that line in the sand?
Michael Gerson on How 9/11 Changed Bush - Newsweek National News - MSNBC.com
"From those events [of 9/11], President Bush drew a fixed conclusion: as long as the Middle East remains a bitter and backward mess, America will not be secure."
This is the one thing that I think the 62% or so of Americans polled (that's 100% minus Bush's current approval rating, not necessarily just the 55% who DISapprove of Bush's job) seem to miss. Why did we invade Afghanistan? Why did we invade Iraq and oust Saddam? And why do I sometimes think we need to lower the boom on Iran and Syria? Because as long as the Middle East remains such a mess, America will NOT be secure.
Why don't these people get this? All we (and the media) can focus on is the hundreds (not tens of thousands or even millions) of soldiers that gave their lives in Iraq. How many troops have died in Iraq and Afghanistan to date? Does it yet surpass the number of people who died in 9/11? Or London? Or Madrid? Or all of the above? Does it yet surpass the number of people who COULD have died very possibly this past weekend? What is the measure that we use to determine when too many young men and women have died for what a lot of Americans seem to think is a stupid idea?
"Every element of the Bush doctrine was directed toward a vision: a reformed Middle East that joins the world instead of resenting and assaulting it."
There's no doubt that we seem to be fostering even more resentment muddling around in Iraq (etc) right now. And if history ends up proving that President Bush did the worst possible thing invading Iraq, then that old adage will have proven true: the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
"Some commentators say that America is too exhausted to confront this [Iran] threat. But presidential decisions on national security are not primarily made by the divination of public sentiments; they are made by the determination of national interests. And the low blood-sugar level of pundits counts not at all. Here the choice is not easy, but it is simple: can America (and other nations) accept a nuclear Iran?"
I predict, unfortunately, that before 2008, President Bush may have to institute the draft again. You know why. And I swear, if the media starts decrying an invasion of Iran (or whatever we have to do), then perhaps it's time to put the First Amendment aside for a second and gag the press. Because it's one thing to be free to express your opinion. It's another thing to erode national morale when we would need it the most. To be honest, if it were to incite unrest even in this country, that could be construed as a threat to national security. And I really see things heading this way, considering how much the Bush administration has been testing just how far they can push the Constitution aside to get the job done.
So, can America accept a nuclear Iran? Well, can the media actually back off a bit and stop bringing down the morale of an entire country? Can we Americans actually, for once, hope that our elected officials are acting in our best interests (or at least trying to)? Or should we just kowtow to the peacenicks and let Iran have its nukes? Should we just open the floodgates to Hell, and let every Tom, Dick and Atta march in with briefcase nukes? Sure! Why not?
That was sarcasm, by the way.
"Americans have every right to expect competence and honesty about risks and mistakes and failures. Yet Americans, in turn, must understand that in a war where deception is the weapon and goal of the enemy, every mistake is not a lie; every failure is not a conspiracy. And the worst failure would be a timid foreign policy that allows terrible threats to emerge."
No comment. I think the quote speaks for itself.
What is my final thought on this article? America, you need to get a clue. There are times when we have to shoulder the burden and risk our children in a distant land. And this is it. Unless you have a better idea. I'd really like to know. And, how will this idea of yours work? What guarantees its success? What makes it a better idea than what the administration is doing now? I'd really like to know.
"From those events [of 9/11], President Bush drew a fixed conclusion: as long as the Middle East remains a bitter and backward mess, America will not be secure."
This is the one thing that I think the 62% or so of Americans polled (that's 100% minus Bush's current approval rating, not necessarily just the 55% who DISapprove of Bush's job) seem to miss. Why did we invade Afghanistan? Why did we invade Iraq and oust Saddam? And why do I sometimes think we need to lower the boom on Iran and Syria? Because as long as the Middle East remains such a mess, America will NOT be secure.
Why don't these people get this? All we (and the media) can focus on is the hundreds (not tens of thousands or even millions) of soldiers that gave their lives in Iraq. How many troops have died in Iraq and Afghanistan to date? Does it yet surpass the number of people who died in 9/11? Or London? Or Madrid? Or all of the above? Does it yet surpass the number of people who COULD have died very possibly this past weekend? What is the measure that we use to determine when too many young men and women have died for what a lot of Americans seem to think is a stupid idea?
"Every element of the Bush doctrine was directed toward a vision: a reformed Middle East that joins the world instead of resenting and assaulting it."
There's no doubt that we seem to be fostering even more resentment muddling around in Iraq (etc) right now. And if history ends up proving that President Bush did the worst possible thing invading Iraq, then that old adage will have proven true: the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
"Some commentators say that America is too exhausted to confront this [Iran] threat. But presidential decisions on national security are not primarily made by the divination of public sentiments; they are made by the determination of national interests. And the low blood-sugar level of pundits counts not at all. Here the choice is not easy, but it is simple: can America (and other nations) accept a nuclear Iran?"
I predict, unfortunately, that before 2008, President Bush may have to institute the draft again. You know why. And I swear, if the media starts decrying an invasion of Iran (or whatever we have to do), then perhaps it's time to put the First Amendment aside for a second and gag the press. Because it's one thing to be free to express your opinion. It's another thing to erode national morale when we would need it the most. To be honest, if it were to incite unrest even in this country, that could be construed as a threat to national security. And I really see things heading this way, considering how much the Bush administration has been testing just how far they can push the Constitution aside to get the job done.
So, can America accept a nuclear Iran? Well, can the media actually back off a bit and stop bringing down the morale of an entire country? Can we Americans actually, for once, hope that our elected officials are acting in our best interests (or at least trying to)? Or should we just kowtow to the peacenicks and let Iran have its nukes? Should we just open the floodgates to Hell, and let every Tom, Dick and Atta march in with briefcase nukes? Sure! Why not?
That was sarcasm, by the way.
"Americans have every right to expect competence and honesty about risks and mistakes and failures. Yet Americans, in turn, must understand that in a war where deception is the weapon and goal of the enemy, every mistake is not a lie; every failure is not a conspiracy. And the worst failure would be a timid foreign policy that allows terrible threats to emerge."
No comment. I think the quote speaks for itself.
What is my final thought on this article? America, you need to get a clue. There are times when we have to shoulder the burden and risk our children in a distant land. And this is it. Unless you have a better idea. I'd really like to know. And, how will this idea of yours work? What guarantees its success? What makes it a better idea than what the administration is doing now? I'd really like to know.
posted by xanadian at 10:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home