War On Terror--The Bush View
It's fair to say that President Bush has agressively pursued the War on Terror. The plan is to take the battle to the terrorists, chasing them wherever they try to hide. I am not sure exactly what the Kerry plan is at this point, except that it involves more first responders (firemen and policemen). The Bush plan is pro-active and the Kerry plan is reactive. That is not a slam at Kerry by the way; inevitably there will come another terrorist attack on American soil, and reactive strategies may save lives. As devastating as the 9-11 attacks were, the first responders probably saved many lives that day.
The major difference in the Bush and Kerry strategies can probably be summed up in one word: Iraq. I think Paul will agree that it is highly unlikely that Kerry would have pursued warfare with Saddam had he been President in 2003. I don't want to be critical of Kerry here per the blog rules, so suffice to say that Kerry has not been definitive on this point.
What could Iraq represent? Well it is possible that it will represent the flowering of democracy in the Middle East, and serve as an example to its neighbors that the Arab states are not doomed to despotism either by strongmen or Islamic law. I certainly recognize that it is not there now, but as President Bush pointed out, neither was Germany in 1946. Much depends on how rapidly economic conditions improve there in the next several years. One benefit of Iraq has largely been ignored by the media; the abandonment of Libya's WMD program.
There are many who doubt this will happen. The Arabs can't have a stable regime; inevitably they will become a theocracy or a thugocracy. It's easy to get that impression with the media covering only the bad news. But there are a number of great blogs by Iraqis who are grateful to the United States and who are determined not to let this rarest opportunity to pass by. I suggest that anyone who wants to hear the situation from the people who are living under the "occupation" check out Iraq the Model or the Mesopotamian.
In the future we face certain challenges from Iran and North Korea. There is no doubt in my mind that President Bush is best equipped to handle these two rogue states, for the simple reason that he did go to war with Iraq. Nobody can mistake the seriousness of his resolve.
The major difference in the Bush and Kerry strategies can probably be summed up in one word: Iraq. I think Paul will agree that it is highly unlikely that Kerry would have pursued warfare with Saddam had he been President in 2003. I don't want to be critical of Kerry here per the blog rules, so suffice to say that Kerry has not been definitive on this point.
What could Iraq represent? Well it is possible that it will represent the flowering of democracy in the Middle East, and serve as an example to its neighbors that the Arab states are not doomed to despotism either by strongmen or Islamic law. I certainly recognize that it is not there now, but as President Bush pointed out, neither was Germany in 1946. Much depends on how rapidly economic conditions improve there in the next several years. One benefit of Iraq has largely been ignored by the media; the abandonment of Libya's WMD program.
There are many who doubt this will happen. The Arabs can't have a stable regime; inevitably they will become a theocracy or a thugocracy. It's easy to get that impression with the media covering only the bad news. But there are a number of great blogs by Iraqis who are grateful to the United States and who are determined not to let this rarest opportunity to pass by. I suggest that anyone who wants to hear the situation from the people who are living under the "occupation" check out Iraq the Model or the Mesopotamian.
In the future we face certain challenges from Iran and North Korea. There is no doubt in my mind that President Bush is best equipped to handle these two rogue states, for the simple reason that he did go to war with Iraq. Nobody can mistake the seriousness of his resolve.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home