Politics: A new beginning

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I didn't google it, old man, and I wasn't really up on stuff like that during my tender years. So, they kill our soldiers (200?) and we run; they bomb the embassy and we fight.

so knowing stuff makes me old......?
I really wasn't politically aware of the Beirut thing, i think it was an early example of the mid-east is fucking nuts and we should avoid it generally, or maybe RR fucked up- no position,

but "and we fight?" do yuo mean hte 30 seconds to hit the launch buttons on some Cruises?

I'm pissed off! I'm picking a fight with that baSTArd ridge in my back yard. I'm taking a shovel out there and getting midevil on it!
its fighting time!!!!

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
so knowing stuff makes me old......?
I really wasn't politically aware of the Beirut thing, i think it was an early example of the mid-east is fucking nuts and we should avoid it generally, or maybe RR fucked up- no position,

but "and we fight?" do yuo mean hte 30 seconds to hit the launch buttons on some Cruises?
its fighting time!!!!

Ah. So, basically we don't get mad when they kill our soldiers -- after all they signed up for it. That would explain why Bush doesn't go to funerals.

[Not Temp Sock]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/372563|top|12-11-2003::17:05|reuters.html

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A missile from a U.S. Navy Aegis cruiser shattered a dummy warhead over the Pacific on Thursday, the fourth intercept in five tests of the sea-based leg of a planned multi-layered missile shield, the Pentagon said."

This proud moment in military history brought to you by President George W. Bush, who realized that it is foolish to abide by the terms of an outdated treaty with a country that no longer exists.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I don't necessarily disagree. I just think that a truly balanced view would observe that Bush's comments have potential costs beyond just the changes that occur as a direct result of those comments.

I see Bush's foreign policy as a counterswing to several (or more) years of The Wrong Stuff. I see it as a good, desirable counterswing. We need this to drag the process several yards to the other side of where it was two years ago.

But, (big "but" here), I would not want to see this doctrine or philosophy made permanent. This is a necessary overreaction of discrete useful duration. I think that it is used to best effect with one more term of Bush, followed by either a centrist Dem or centrist Repub who will then bring things gradually back to a more we-are-the-world view. At that point, the benefits of the present course will be fully realized, we will be able to pursue the holding-hands-with-Chirac philosophy and resume drinking french wines, and the world will strive to be our friends with a new admission and awareness that, while we're nice, fucking with us will have a price.

I don't view the Bush paradigms as the desirable course forever. But, I want them now, and for six more years. If he could just stop spending money like a drunken draft national guarder . . .

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
No one says Bush is not a strong leader, but I think it is pretty clear that he is not a strong _Manager_ (I think few modern Presidents were). That's not surprising -- nothing in his past said otherwise.

Concur. No one voted for him based on his managerial skills.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
Concur. No one voted for him based on his managerial skills.

Didn't he, during the campaign, talk about running the country more like a corporation? Is management not important in corporations?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I think that the world perception of lack of American will and principles originates from the funk America fell into in the immediate post-Vietnam 1970s.

Exactly. From that experience we stupidly took the lesson that we were always in the wrong. Inaction is the logical result of such a faux discovery.

I agree that the cost of this statement is low, in context, but I see it as emblematic of a style (personal style, I suppose) that I am just not happy to see in a head of state. I think that the cost of this approach in terms of U.S. credibility and the opportunity costs for lost cooperation have been medium to high, and that while the world is more afraid of us (and considers us unpredictable) -- that also has a significant cost that, as yet, exceeds the benefits. (The benefits of this effect are less certain and can only be reaped in the long term.)

I think we agree. See my earlier post re: Bush forever?

In my view, as to Bush's foreign policy, I disagree as much or more with HOW he does it as I do with WHAT he does. The first often influences the second.

Here we diverge. I think the HOW is turning out to be more important than the WHAT. I would rather someone who was about to mess with us, or a friend or ally, be certain that, while they can't really predict WHAT we'll do, we'll damn well do SOMETHING bad to them. I think that's a good attitude to foster. I think Bush's HOW does just that.

I think that there are other, better ways to get the same job done -- witness Bush I and project how he might have handled post-9/11. The events might not be too different but the style would be. In my view, then and now, his foreign policy was masterful and his style and experience were brilliantly suited to representing America in the world.

I remain convinced that, had Bush I won, 9/11 would never have happened, we'd be on top of the world in an intelligence sense, and the economy would have actually turned out better. Having said that, I think the temperament (if not the experience, and maybe raw intelligence) of Bush I is not as well suited to a post-9/11 world as is the cowboy. I like the cowboy to a great degree because he is a cowboy, and we need a cowboy right now.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
He had enormous energy and a high work ethic (No 2 hour workouts or afternoon naps), and had a hand in everything without being a micromanager -- but he was somewhat undisciplined in his professional life as well as in his personal.

He had been planning those eight years ever since he was fifteen. That was his very focused life goal. No way was he going to be napping once he finally made it. He had too much to do. And, undisciplined? A guy who worked for one goal and one goal only for his whole sentient life? No way. He was very disciplined, and focused, and driven - but he was also king of the world, and knew he could wing it, whether "it" be professional or personal.

That was his ultimate undoing, but he came very close to pulling it all off. Think of what enormous worldwide prestige he'd have today had he not seen Monica. He'd probably be the head of the new EU, the titular head of every American to the left of Lieberman, and the behind-the-scenes manipulator of the UN.

And I didn't even particularly care for him.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
9/11 may have been a wake up call for you, but it was not for everybody. There were many (conservative) publications hemming and hawing about Clinton's foreign policy from about 1994 on. Were these partisan attacks? Partially, but there were many areas of substantive critique as well, and I was in agreement on most issues with them (except Bosnia/Serbia - I think Clinton was right on that one).

The areas of substantive critique are looking a lot worse now that Bush is trying to introduce democracy in the Middle East. Conservatives were criticizing Clinton for being too engaged.

In order to answer your question, I think we would need to go hot spot by hot spot, but here is a quick list of those I can remember off the top of my head: Rwanda, Aphganistan, North Korea, the Middle East (i.e., Palestine/Israel), Iraq, Somalia and Haiti. Did I miss any?

Countries?

Rwanda -- Blaming Clinton is pretty appalling, since it's not like anyone else was urging that we rush in, and we still haven't figured out a good response to ethnic conflict in Africa. Will you be blaming Bush for Liberia in a few years? I didn't think so.

Afghanistan -- Wasn't even on the radar until late in his second term. Find me a conservative critique of his Afghanistan policy dating from before W.'s inauguration. He tried to kill OBL there with cruise missiles, and when it failed I didn't hear anyone clamoring to invade.

North Korea -- You have to be kidding me. Clinton's policy looks positively golden next to W.'s. He got them to shut down their nuclear program for most of his time in office. W. has induced them to build the bomb. (A rational response to bilmore's "tough guy" foreign policy.)

the Middle East -- Again, Clinton invested much more than Bush has w/r/t Israel and Palestine. It's hard for me to understand what you're criticizing, especially since your general theme is that he didn't do enough.

Iraq -- Clinton's containment policy looks better every day.

Somalia -- Clinton inherited a failed policy from Bush, and got out when it was clear that a peacekeeping mission had morphed into something incoherent and untenable. Pray tell, what is Bush's Somalia policy?

Haiti -- What's the problem? He tried to make things better. Do you have any better ideas?

My central thesis is that Clinton was willing to act in low risk areas (Haiti) and used a band-aid or ostrich approach everywhere else.

This is rich, given that your folks were criticizing him for doing too much.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Wasn't it the case in Beirut that Reagan spoke movingly about staying until the job was done, until the embassy bombing, and then Reagan decided to pull all our forces out?

Poor Reagan got blind-sided by Beirut. He thought we were on the good guys's side there.

Hell, he thought there WERE good guys there. He didn't understand that the Christians were killing the Muslims, who were killing the Coptics, who were killing the Druse, who were killing . . . .

And they were all doing it for money and power and nothing else. He walked into a gang war, with very bad intelligence.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Poor Reagan got blind-sided by Beirut. He thought we were on the good guys's side there.

Hell, he thought there WERE good guys there. He didn't understand that the Christians were killing the Muslims, who were killing the Coptics, who were killing the Druse, who were killing . . . .

And they were all doing it for money and power and nothing else. He walked into a gang war, with very bad intelligence.

There's an easy and cheap joke in rejoinder to "poor Reagan," but I'll avoid it. I'll take your point that he (we) walked into something we didn't fully understand.

And to others, yep -- you're right, it was a Marines barracks, now that I think about it. My bad.

I remain convinced that, had Bush I won, 9/11 would never have happened, we'd be on top of the world in an intelligence sense, and the economy would have actually turned out better. Having said that, I think the temperament (if not the experience, and maybe raw intelligence) of Bush I is not as well suited to a post-9/11 world as is the cowboy. I like the cowboy to a great degree because he is a cowboy, and we need a cowboy right now.

I don't follow your logic that, had Bush I beaten Clinton, that we'd have avoided 9/11. As mentioned above, I think that OBL drew his perceptions of American weakness from a longer window of time than The Clinton Years.

FWIW, I also don't think that Clinton's foreign policy was abysmal.

Finally, while there is some merit to having a cowboy in a post-9/11 world, what bothers me is (a) that cowboy-ness has its limits, and (b) he was a cowboy well before 9/11, and was telling the rest of the world to FU before such fundamental and more justifiable reasons lay behind it, instead because (I suspect) it fit within a Ford-era world view and, well, it just kinda felt good.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I don't follow your logic that, had Bush I beaten Clinton, that we'd have avoided 9/11. As mentioned above, I think that OBL drew his perceptions of American weakness from a longer window of time than The Clinton Years.

Bush I, partially because of his differing views of what was important, but maybe in greater part because of his job progression, placed a much higher value on one thing than did Clinton. That was intelligence.

Not smarts - I mean, knowing what was going on all over the world. Clinton did a number on our intelligence capacity. (OK, to avoid a side fight, change that to, our intelligence capacity was greatly reduced during Clinton's tenure.) Had Bush I had his way, I think that we would have known all about AQ, and would probably have quietly done them in long before they started their serious campaign.

That's what I see as the difference, not that OBL would have feared Bush I more than Clinton.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
I remain convinced that, had Bush I won, 9/11 would never have happened, we'd be on top of the world in an intelligence sense, and the economy would have actually turned out better. Having said that, I think the temperament (if not the experience, and maybe raw intelligence) of Bush I is not as well suited to a post-9/11 world as is the cowboy. I like the cowboy to a great degree because he is a cowboy, and we need a cowboy right now.

I think if Bush I had won, we wouldn't have the cowboy right now as the Prez.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Had Bush I had his way, I think that we would have known all about AQ, and would probably have quietly done them in long before they started their serious campaign.

While I concur that Bush I was more interested in the intelligence community than Clinton -- and every other President in the nation's history -- I think you are kidding yourself if you think that Bush, in a second term, could have done much to help infiltrate AQ. Our intelligence agencies were built for, equipped for, and tempermentally suited to the Cold War. We emphasized Europe and the former Soviet Union, and communications wizardry over human resources. Maybe Bush could have done more to push a change, but '92-'96 was not a time when we were feeling imperiled by the Middle East. And, as you hint, the country was enjoying the peace dividend.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Our intelligence agencies were built for, equipped for, and tempermentally suited to the Cold War. We emphasized Europe and the former Soviet Union, and communications wizardry over human resources. Maybe Bush could have done more to push a change, but '92-'96 was not a time when we were feeling imperiled by the Middle East. And, as you hint, the country was enjoying the peace dividend.

I don't agree. The peace dividend was something only Dems were talking about. I think many, many, many of us thought the middle east was the right place to turn our attentions. (I really, really, really think that) Long before the cold war even ended, I remember my dad saying that exact thing - that we needed to be less focused on the Soviet Union (which was in fact called the Soviet Union before the end of the cold war) and Eastern Europe and more focused on the middle east. That is the one and only thing that Carter got right. Other than that, he was a dipshit.

Umm, can you answer my question on the FB? I value your opinion.