Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
First, Bush has the wrong vision to fight a war against Al Qaeda. He places too much emphasis on state sponsors of terror, and too little on the many ways in which movements like Al Qaeda can operate free of state sponsors, e.g. in failed states. This focus led him to Iraq, which is more of a problem for us in the war on terror now than it was before. (Not so if we can stabilize it and turn it into a beacon for the region -- I'm not holding my breath.) At the same time, we're not doing much of anything to address the greivances that animate Al Qaeda.
Second, in so casually dismissing Kerry, you're just not being serious. He's surrounded by people like Holbrooke, Biden and Berger (before the sock debacle) who worry about this war and have views about what to do. None of these people think they're fighting the Cold War. And I don't even understand your barb about leaving tactical decisions to the generals. WTF?
|
Wrong and wrong. Bush will go after failed states as surely as he'll go after state-sponsors. The difference is, it barely registers when our special forces operate in failed states. I should note that the operations of our special forces in failed states is something that I think you've at least guessed is occuring. Addressing the grievances that animate Al Queda? That is dangerously close to being an apologist for them. Their grievances are that they lost in societal evolution and we won. They hate our sucess.
I am being serious about Kerry too. At the end of the day, I don't care who surrounds a leader if the leader doesn't have the vision thing down. Reagan was a perfect example of the right vision with the right cabinet (in most areas). Bush is a perfect example of the right vision with a few arrogant and meddling assholes in the cabinet. The tactical thing is apropos, because it addresses Bush's big problem (in my eyes) militarily, which is that the Pentagon civilians meddle in tactical affairs at an alarming rate and with disastrous results. Why would I bring this up wrt Kerry? Well, this arrogance and meddling are a legacy of McNamara and, more recently, Aspen. Its just another example of bad habits that our leader has picked up from Democratic administrations. In any case, it has proved to the be wrong thing to do uniformly over the last 50 years. Once you send the Marines or Army in, give them what they say they need, and tell them to call if they need anything else or when they've annihilated the enemy. The thing is, Kerry is, at best, an unknown in this regard.
Who do you think would be likely candidates for Secretary of Defense in a Kerry administration and what have they stated previously on this topic (its a topic that has been widely commented on)?
Hello
