GW's Rubicon

[Annie]

Have at it:

http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson102805PF.html

October 28, 2005
Crossing the Rubicon
The die is cast — or why it ought to be.
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online

For good or evil, George W. Bush will have to cross the Rubicon on judicial nominations, politicized indictments, Iraq, the greater Middle East, and the constant frenzy of the Howard Dean wing of the Democratic party — and now march on his various adversaries as never before. He can choose either to be nicked and slowly bled to death in his second term, or to bare his fangs and like some cornered carnivore start slashing back.

Before Harriet Miers, conservatives pined for a Chief Justice Antonin Scalia, with a Justice Roberts and someone like a Janice Rogers Brown rounding out a battle-hardened and formidable new conservative triad. They relished the idea of a Scalia frying Joe Biden in a televised cross-examination or another articulate black female nominee once again embarrassing a shrill Barbara Boxer — all as relish to brilliantly crafted opinions scaling back the reach of activist judges. That was not quite to be.

But now, with the Miers' withdrawal, the president might as well go for broke to reclaim his base and redefine his second term as one of principle rather than triangulating politics. So he should call in top Republican senators and the point people of his base — never more needed than now — and get them to agree on the most brilliant, accomplished, and conservative jurist possible. He should then ram the nominee through, in a display to the American people of the principles at stake.

It is also time to step up lecturing both the American people and the Iraqis on exactly what we are doing in the Sunni Triangle. We have been sleepwalking through the greatest revolutionary movement in the history of the Middle East, as the U.S. military is quietly empowering the once-despised Kurds and Shiites — and along with them women and the other formerly dispossessed of Iraq. In short, the U.S. Marine Corps has done more for global freedom and social justice in two years than has every U.N. peacekeeping mission since the inception of that now-corrupt organization.

This is high-stakes — and idealistic — stuff. And the more we talk in such terms, the more the president can put the onus of cynical realism on the peace movement and the corrupt forces in the Middle East, who alike wish us to fail. Forget acrimony over weapons of mass destruction, platitudes about abstract democracy, and arguments over U.S. security strategies. Instead bluntly explain to the world how at this time and at this moment the U. S. is trying to bring equality and freedom to the unfree, in a manner rare in the history of civilization.

Yes, the Kurds and the Shiites need to compromise. The Sunnis must disavow terrorism. But above all, the American people need to be reminded there was no oil, no hegemony, no money, no Israel, and no profit involved in this effort, but something far greater and more lasting. And so it no accident that the Iraqis are the only people in the Arab world voting in free elections and dying as they fight in the war against terror.

Was Iraq naïve? Perhaps. Idealistic? Of course. But cynical or conniving? — not at all. That is the domain of the Arab kleptocracies, the corrupt Europeans, and increasingly the radical American Left — who all have much to lose if the United States can stop the petrol-theft of the Hussein legacy, expose its corrupt ganglia, establish a democracy, and prove that the United States found real security from terrorism only by bringing constitutional government to the Middle East.

The key to Iraq is enfeebling those around it who are weakening the country — namely Syria and Iran. The U.S. should be calling for democratic reform in both countries — constantly, without interruption, and in the same idealistic fashion as we appeal to the Iraqis. The president must focus world attention on just how awful those two regimes are. After all, an Iranian president threatens to wipe Israel off the face of the map at precisely the time his government lies and connives to obtain nuclear weapons — which alone could bring that avowed sick Khomeineseque dream to fruition, given Iran’s conventional military impotence. Again, the government of Iran is not just talking about warring with the Sharon government or attacking the Israeli nation, but rather liquidating the Jewish people — as Hitlerian a promise of genocide as we have seen since the Holocaust. And he boasts like a leader who fully expects to have nuclear weapons in the near future.

Syria’s government is little more than Murder, Inc. Its assassination of Mr. Hariri slowed the entire Lebanese reform movement. It’s been a fine and noble thing that George Bush began to confront Syria, but he should go even further to call on the nations of the world to consider the young Assad the new Milosevic who, like the Iranian president, is an international outlaw deserving of sanctions, embargos, and global ostracism.

We should remind the world that our 2,000th fatality did not end our commitment to freedom and justice, but reminded us just how much we owe our dead so that their ultimate sacrifice was not in vain. We must make sure this sacrifice will lead to the defeat of the terrorists and the establishment of freedom in the greater Middle East. Once we went into Iraq, in the long run there was no living with either Assad or a nuclear Iranian theocracy — and both autocracies grasped that fact far better than we did, as evidenced by the constant stream of terrorists flooding in to kill Americans and undermine Iraqi democracy. The more we jawbone them, pressure them, and isolate them now, the less likely it is that we will have to use force later. Again, no “smoke ‘em out” or “bring ‘em on” braggadocio, but just something to the effect that we are taking great risks at great costs to join with the Iraqis to give freedom and equality at last a chance in the Middle East.

George Bush also should begin addressing his most venomous critics at home, by condemning their current extremism. He must explain to the nation how a radical, vicious Left has more or less gotten a free pass in its rhetoric of hate, and has now passed the limits of accepted debate.

In the last six months we have heard from various demagogues — though they are recognized as such due to their prominence in the media — that we were waging nuclear war in Iraq (Cindy Sheehan), that there was cannibalism in New Orleans (Randall Robinson), that George Bush and Dick Cheney should be shot (the novelist Jane Smiley) or executed (Al Franken). Alfred Knopf has published a book about the theoretical assassination of the president, and the Nazi slur is now commonplace in Democratic circles, where a Senator Dick Durbin or Ted Kennedy slanders American soldiers as akin to either Saddam’s torturers or even Nazis and Stalinists. The case needs to be made that we are seeing a new paranoid style — but from the Left, whose opponents are not to be out-argued, but rather deemed worthy of death or demonization as Nazis. The recent eclipse of George Galloway — due in no large part to Christopher Hitchens’ lonely and underappreciated pursuit of his perfidy — reminds us how hard these reprobates finally will fall.

All of these issues are interrelated. If the president can win the hearts and minds of the American people on one theme, the others will fall into play. The more the president talks of principle and values, the more he can do so with zeal, and yes, real passion and occasional anger.

The odd thing is that so far the conventional advice to the president — keep the discussion on Iraq only to U.S. national security, not the upheaval of the existing corrupt order; reach out to the Democratic Senate; curb your idealistic rhetoric with Syria or Iran; ignore shrill enemies; nominate someone that the opposition will not seriously object to — has only emboldened critics here and abroad. It is time to go back on the offensive, both for the idealistic legacy of the Bush presidency and the immediate future of his ideas in the upcoming 2006 elections. The American people, both pro and con, are more than ready for a great debate to settle these issues one way or another.

 

[nosarcasm]

the corrupt Europeans

Europe is not any more or less corrupt then the US.

 

[Annie]

Europe is not any more or less corrupt then the US.

Yeah, at least some of them are.

 

[dilloduck]

Europe is not any more or less corrupt then the US.

I'll agree--we got some real pieces of work here too

 

[nosarcasm]

it really depends on the country, city, state in both regions.

I dont like the moral superiority complex by either the European
or the American press.

Not helpfull.

 

[Annie]

it really depends on the country, city, state in both regions.

I dont like the moral superiority complex by either the European
or the American press.

Not helpfull.

Can't disagree with the helpfulness part, but some have earned it while others presume it.

 

[nosarcasm]

who has earned moral superiority ?

 

[Annie]

who has earned moral superiority ?

From my perspective, while the US has certainly left some 'moral cesspools' thrive-see Sudan; there are too many other instances where we have answered the call, even when we shouldn't as it was others' job to do-see Balkans.

Then there is the response to the tsunamis, the earthquakes, etc. Even in Iran. Now compare the European capabilities, the US capabilities, who did what? Perhaps the EU doesn't have the Navy ships, but France does. Perhaps any one country doesn't have the 'man power' the EU does. They certainly have the money.

During the Cold War, when nations needed the 'super power' they had no trouble taking it-see Germany 1960's. Today they act like we've always been grabbing at Empire-yeah, whatever.

I'd like to know what a majority of European states have done to make the 'world' a bit better, on the scale we are speaking of.

 

[nosarcasm]

Germany was an occupied country in the early 60's. With the background
of the holocaust looming hardly the nation to play the better then you card.
Still I saw proof of the American comittment for freedom when
during the German reunification unlike France the US supported
chancellor Kohl.

As you said small countries can't use military interventions as options.

Consistency of your politics and ideology would be maybe the best
indicator.

France and the US both have a rather spotty record. Realist politics
do not follow ideology, so I dont see it as a bad thing. But
it is ludacris(sp) when either side claims it stands for all the good
in the world more then the next true democracy. (or Republic)

The Scandinavians might have been more consistent in their approach
to foreign policy but its much easier when you are small and dont
have interest around the world.

Still I resent the attitude that one
is better then the other based on morals. That would be my pretext
to kill others because I think I know better. So I try to avoid thinking in those categories.

 

[Annie]

Germany was an occupied country in the early 60's. With the background
of the holocaust looming hardly the nation to play the better then you card.
Still I saw proof of the American comittment for freedom when
during the German reunification unlike France the US supported
chancellor Kohl.

As you said small countries can't use military interventions as options.

Consistency of your politics and ideology would be maybe the best
indicator.

France and the US both have a rather spotty record. Realist politics
do not follow ideology, so I dont see it as a bad thing. But
it is ludacris(sp) when either side claims it stands for all the good
in the world more then the next true democracy. (or Republic)

The Scandinavians might have been more consistent in their approach
to foreign policy but its much easier when you are small and dont
have interest around the world.

Still I resent the attitude that one
is better then the other based on morals. That would be my pretext
to kill others because I think I know better. So I try to avoid thinking in those categories.

You'll notice that right out of the box I qualified our 'morals' with instances where we act without morals. The idea of a country using 'morals' though, is not a bad one with the given that there are 'self interests' always at work. The way issues are addressed though, that is one of the best measures of a country. For example, during the Berlin airlift, you did not hear most of our citizens questioning why we should do so. Nor did you find calls for us to 'take over' Germany once the Soviets backed off, (besides the fact that we were still there from the war-would be ever so much easier if these things didn't overlap! :teeth: )

Take the Marshall Plan, our self-interest at work, we had no desire to see another European War in 20 years or so. Yet, the people of the US ponied up the tax money to make it real. When did any other state do that or anything on that level, then not demand the repayments, that were never made? Actually for the most part, acting as though we were and are on 'equal footing?' I mean, does anyone wonder if the US could 'conquer' the European continent-a folly to think of, but doubt? Unless France decided to try and nuke us, nukes wouldn't even come into play.

Now you are hearing me wrong if you think I'm saying the US is superior to other nations by might and right. I am saying that we have an extensive history of mostly doing the right things, but being trashed in a way that would be unacceptable to other countries.