preemptingyou03
Member
- Mar 18, 2004
- 369
- 4
- 16
President Bush has been depicted as launching preemptive wars without any world support in an unprecedented way. Now, while the claims of reckless preemption and doing so without world support are false, those who claim Bushs tactics are unprecedented are, in a way, right. These are unprecedented times which call for unprecedented tactics.
The comparison between the beginning of the Cold War and the beginning of the War on Terror are quite stunning, and the comparison between the Truman Doctrine and the Bush Doctrine, on the level of precedence, is also very similar. The tactics of which well fight this war, however, are extremely different than anything weve had to do in the past. Deterrence used to work with the threat of a huge American military, with huge battleships, destructive bombs, and an overwhelming air force. The same still holds true today, but things are different. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld came into office with the Bush Administration knowing the military had to be transformed to a quicker, lighter, faster military, using smaller forces, more covert operations and special forces. His premise was we needed to adapt to the changing threat of our enemy. Until before 9/11, nobody thought a non-state group could pull off an attack such as that, on such a grand scale. It caught us off-guard. We were wrong.
In his Address to the Nation on September 11th, President Bush spoke in a mournful tone. Yet a sense of anger, aligned with a sense of seriousness arouse when he stated simply, We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts, and those who harbor them. This statement put aside the belief that our response is just against those who attacked us that morning; our response is against terrorism, the tactics of terrorism, and threat of terrorism. In his State of the Union Address on September 20th, 2001, President Bush laid out the tactics with which he believes we will be conduct the War on Terror, or the tactics he will conduct it, during his time in office; he stated the longevity of this conflict, and how it may include shocking missiles strikes and dramatic invasion, visible on television, and covert operations and midnight raids, secret to the world even in success. It put forth a policy of covert, as opposed to overt, warfare. The word secret struck a cord in Americans, and when it was followed up by to the world, even in success, most people watching got it. They understood the seriousness with which this will be conducted as long as this Texan is in office.
But is it more than Bush's war. Bush may very well be an old man by the time the War on Terror is won. He might have been long passed away. Democrat presidents will be in charge while this war is raging. They must understand the concept and doctrine Bush has laid out.
- By means of cooperative international police action and law enforcement, every high value target terrorist individual must be hunted down cave by cave, cell by cell, one by one.
- By means of covert operations and Special Forces, every terrorist network and organization must be dismantled. Funds must be cut, camps must be destroyed.
- By means of a peace through power doctrine of diplomacy, every rogue terrorist state, that shelters well-known terrorists, or funds, sponsors, or aids terrorist networks, must be confronted, and if needed, overthrown.
These three tactics have never been conducted better in the history of the world, partly, because there was no need to conduct them, partly, because of the strong-willed people in the Bush Administration. Democratic governors and senators have openly disagreed with Bushs strategy. This is the most troubling aspect of governmental debate. When Bush is gone, the terrorists wont be. President Bush wont win this war. Hes merely setting the standard and precedent for how itll be conducted. He is rewriting the battlefield playbook for his successors. Certain Democratic leaders get it but the majority has yet to. Maybe they have, but in order to restore their power not only in Congress, but in governorships, and of course the White House, they are offering the American people a more blasé approach to dealing with these times. The reason for this, surprisingly enough, is many Americans want a more blasé approach. George Patton used to say, Americans are sick. He used to say Americans love the sting of battle. He used to say, In the book of world history, chapter one is titled Dont (rhymes with duck) with Americans. God love him for his bluntness, but let me be blunt as well: Americans are peace-loving people, and for good reason. Every war in American history has been protested by American citizens. The ghosts of Vietnam still haunt our memories.
It would be a false assumption to believe terrorists arent in this country this moment. The events on September 11th were not a one-time fluke, rather than the climax of decades of terrorism, and the raising of the standard for all jihadists worldwide. After the Madrid train attacks on March 11th, 2004, the Spaniards voted out their government which supported the United States tactics, and voted in the Socialist party a pacifist party, whose main promise to the people of Spain is to bring home the 1,300+ Spanish troops in Iraq. In the face of terrorism, the people of Spain relied on that blasé attitude. Their belief is if they dont support the United States the terrorists wont have a beef with them, much how many people think if we dont support Israel, they wont have a beef with us. Rather than disregarding all forms of hatred, we must understand why the hate us. We must then respond. Spain failed to do so. And with our past, we may fail to do so as well.
Saddam Hussein once bragged to his confident before the first Gulf War that Americans cannot stomach casualties. Osama bin Laden often refers to the United States as a paper tiger. Do people see what is happening here? We did not defeat the Soviet Union by having a compromising attitude. We provoked conflict, in order to avoid it. If we do not take the bull by the horns, we run the risk of being too late.
Words such as too late strike a cord of fear in Americans as well. And frankly, they are tired of it. Were all pacifists at heart, but in mind, body, and soul, logic must step in. The logic of some, however, is the same as it was at the beginning era of communism. Fear mongering, is a popular phrase used to describe the rhetoric of those who wish to take terrorism seriously. To the contrary, those who believe terrorism must be dealt with harshly, are relying on a conviction. If one were to set back for a moment, to see the big picture and the long term vision of the War on Terror, one would realize the only responsible action is to take the emotional anger we all suffered after 9/11, and turn that into sustained resolve not to avenge those attacks, but to prevent future attacks.
- We cannot differ between al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
- We cannot differ between rogue regimes that support terrorists and the terrorists.
- We cannot be afraid to let the financial reasons for France's opposition, deter us from doing what is right.
- We cannot be afraid to provoke radicalism to prevent terrorism.
Lets get the facts straight about France, Russia, and Germany. From the beginning of World War I in 1914 until the end of the Cold War in 1989, the United States fought two World Wars, gave billions upon billions of dollars away in military and economic aid, lost hundreds and hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and for over four decades, risked nuclear annihilation and a Third World War from the Soviet Union, all so France and the rest of Europe could be free democracies instead of Nazi or Communist mass murdering dictatorships. Imperialism was defeated for France. Fascism was defeated for France. Nazism was defeated for France. Communism was defeated for France. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died on French soil for their liberation. And what do we get after a century long commitment to freedom for France and the rest of the European continent well, not only did French citizens dig up the bodies of American GIs buried in France, but the French government, (not for noble reasons) but for financial, economic, political, and frankly, cynical reasons opposed us in Iraq.
We do not ask all our allies blindly follow our lead. We want international support, but we realize, like the past, we will carry the burden of casualties. Over one-fifth of the causalities our coalition is experiencing in Iraq are non-American casualties. Please explain to the British, Italian, Spanish, Australian, and Japanese mothers, of those who died in our cause that their sons or daughters death doesnt count without French approval. In 1962, when the United States presented France evidence that the Soviet Union was moving missiles to Cuba, France threw the evidence aside and said, If the United States says it is true, it is, and we will support you. As for today, a French official refused to comment during an interview before the war with Iraq that, in the event of a war, who would he want to win. Times have changed. And it isnt necessarily a bad thing.
The United Nations must change too. First of all, countries like Syria shouldnt have a say whether or not we have the right or obligation to attack Iraq. Syria is one of the biggest state sponsors of terrorism, and a Baathist regime, and they have the power to vote off whether or not we attack another state sponsor of terrorism, and another Baathist regime in Iraq? What the hell is this? Now our enemies can tell us how to confront our enemies? This is the same thing as if during the last days of the Nazi regime, Hitler told us, Look go easy on the Japs. Dont nuke them. And we went, Yes, thanks for the advice, oh wise one. Its ludicrous.
Continued...
The comparison between the beginning of the Cold War and the beginning of the War on Terror are quite stunning, and the comparison between the Truman Doctrine and the Bush Doctrine, on the level of precedence, is also very similar. The tactics of which well fight this war, however, are extremely different than anything weve had to do in the past. Deterrence used to work with the threat of a huge American military, with huge battleships, destructive bombs, and an overwhelming air force. The same still holds true today, but things are different. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld came into office with the Bush Administration knowing the military had to be transformed to a quicker, lighter, faster military, using smaller forces, more covert operations and special forces. His premise was we needed to adapt to the changing threat of our enemy. Until before 9/11, nobody thought a non-state group could pull off an attack such as that, on such a grand scale. It caught us off-guard. We were wrong.
In his Address to the Nation on September 11th, President Bush spoke in a mournful tone. Yet a sense of anger, aligned with a sense of seriousness arouse when he stated simply, We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts, and those who harbor them. This statement put aside the belief that our response is just against those who attacked us that morning; our response is against terrorism, the tactics of terrorism, and threat of terrorism. In his State of the Union Address on September 20th, 2001, President Bush laid out the tactics with which he believes we will be conduct the War on Terror, or the tactics he will conduct it, during his time in office; he stated the longevity of this conflict, and how it may include shocking missiles strikes and dramatic invasion, visible on television, and covert operations and midnight raids, secret to the world even in success. It put forth a policy of covert, as opposed to overt, warfare. The word secret struck a cord in Americans, and when it was followed up by to the world, even in success, most people watching got it. They understood the seriousness with which this will be conducted as long as this Texan is in office.
But is it more than Bush's war. Bush may very well be an old man by the time the War on Terror is won. He might have been long passed away. Democrat presidents will be in charge while this war is raging. They must understand the concept and doctrine Bush has laid out.
- By means of cooperative international police action and law enforcement, every high value target terrorist individual must be hunted down cave by cave, cell by cell, one by one.
- By means of covert operations and Special Forces, every terrorist network and organization must be dismantled. Funds must be cut, camps must be destroyed.
- By means of a peace through power doctrine of diplomacy, every rogue terrorist state, that shelters well-known terrorists, or funds, sponsors, or aids terrorist networks, must be confronted, and if needed, overthrown.
These three tactics have never been conducted better in the history of the world, partly, because there was no need to conduct them, partly, because of the strong-willed people in the Bush Administration. Democratic governors and senators have openly disagreed with Bushs strategy. This is the most troubling aspect of governmental debate. When Bush is gone, the terrorists wont be. President Bush wont win this war. Hes merely setting the standard and precedent for how itll be conducted. He is rewriting the battlefield playbook for his successors. Certain Democratic leaders get it but the majority has yet to. Maybe they have, but in order to restore their power not only in Congress, but in governorships, and of course the White House, they are offering the American people a more blasé approach to dealing with these times. The reason for this, surprisingly enough, is many Americans want a more blasé approach. George Patton used to say, Americans are sick. He used to say Americans love the sting of battle. He used to say, In the book of world history, chapter one is titled Dont (rhymes with duck) with Americans. God love him for his bluntness, but let me be blunt as well: Americans are peace-loving people, and for good reason. Every war in American history has been protested by American citizens. The ghosts of Vietnam still haunt our memories.
It would be a false assumption to believe terrorists arent in this country this moment. The events on September 11th were not a one-time fluke, rather than the climax of decades of terrorism, and the raising of the standard for all jihadists worldwide. After the Madrid train attacks on March 11th, 2004, the Spaniards voted out their government which supported the United States tactics, and voted in the Socialist party a pacifist party, whose main promise to the people of Spain is to bring home the 1,300+ Spanish troops in Iraq. In the face of terrorism, the people of Spain relied on that blasé attitude. Their belief is if they dont support the United States the terrorists wont have a beef with them, much how many people think if we dont support Israel, they wont have a beef with us. Rather than disregarding all forms of hatred, we must understand why the hate us. We must then respond. Spain failed to do so. And with our past, we may fail to do so as well.
Saddam Hussein once bragged to his confident before the first Gulf War that Americans cannot stomach casualties. Osama bin Laden often refers to the United States as a paper tiger. Do people see what is happening here? We did not defeat the Soviet Union by having a compromising attitude. We provoked conflict, in order to avoid it. If we do not take the bull by the horns, we run the risk of being too late.
Words such as too late strike a cord of fear in Americans as well. And frankly, they are tired of it. Were all pacifists at heart, but in mind, body, and soul, logic must step in. The logic of some, however, is the same as it was at the beginning era of communism. Fear mongering, is a popular phrase used to describe the rhetoric of those who wish to take terrorism seriously. To the contrary, those who believe terrorism must be dealt with harshly, are relying on a conviction. If one were to set back for a moment, to see the big picture and the long term vision of the War on Terror, one would realize the only responsible action is to take the emotional anger we all suffered after 9/11, and turn that into sustained resolve not to avenge those attacks, but to prevent future attacks.
- We cannot differ between al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
- We cannot differ between rogue regimes that support terrorists and the terrorists.
- We cannot be afraid to let the financial reasons for France's opposition, deter us from doing what is right.
- We cannot be afraid to provoke radicalism to prevent terrorism.
Lets get the facts straight about France, Russia, and Germany. From the beginning of World War I in 1914 until the end of the Cold War in 1989, the United States fought two World Wars, gave billions upon billions of dollars away in military and economic aid, lost hundreds and hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and for over four decades, risked nuclear annihilation and a Third World War from the Soviet Union, all so France and the rest of Europe could be free democracies instead of Nazi or Communist mass murdering dictatorships. Imperialism was defeated for France. Fascism was defeated for France. Nazism was defeated for France. Communism was defeated for France. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died on French soil for their liberation. And what do we get after a century long commitment to freedom for France and the rest of the European continent well, not only did French citizens dig up the bodies of American GIs buried in France, but the French government, (not for noble reasons) but for financial, economic, political, and frankly, cynical reasons opposed us in Iraq.
We do not ask all our allies blindly follow our lead. We want international support, but we realize, like the past, we will carry the burden of casualties. Over one-fifth of the causalities our coalition is experiencing in Iraq are non-American casualties. Please explain to the British, Italian, Spanish, Australian, and Japanese mothers, of those who died in our cause that their sons or daughters death doesnt count without French approval. In 1962, when the United States presented France evidence that the Soviet Union was moving missiles to Cuba, France threw the evidence aside and said, If the United States says it is true, it is, and we will support you. As for today, a French official refused to comment during an interview before the war with Iraq that, in the event of a war, who would he want to win. Times have changed. And it isnt necessarily a bad thing.
The United Nations must change too. First of all, countries like Syria shouldnt have a say whether or not we have the right or obligation to attack Iraq. Syria is one of the biggest state sponsors of terrorism, and a Baathist regime, and they have the power to vote off whether or not we attack another state sponsor of terrorism, and another Baathist regime in Iraq? What the hell is this? Now our enemies can tell us how to confront our enemies? This is the same thing as if during the last days of the Nazi regime, Hitler told us, Look go easy on the Japs. Dont nuke them. And we went, Yes, thanks for the advice, oh wise one. Its ludicrous.
Continued...
