The scariest GOP candidate on foreign policy is Rudy Giuliani. The reason I find him scary is because he touts himself as wanting to go "on the offensive" with terrorism or Islamofascism or whatever the term de jour is for the anti-Western militant groups in the Near and Middle East. The Mayor proposes 100,000 more troops: how we are supposed to get them I'm not sure, but the only certain way is either a draft--which is the word that there not speak its name on the campaign--or by giving more money to companies like Blackwater to recruit mercenary soldiers to do the work.
The other scary part about Rudy is that he has surrounded himself with the remaining neo-cons, Norman Podhortz and Daniel Pipes among them, who are heck-bent on starting a war with Iraq. According to a Newsweek profile on His Honor, Mr. Podhortz--a 1960's far-Left guy turned far-Right editor of Commentary, a position now held by his brother John-- has urged President Bush in a private meeting to bomb Iran. Here is Podhortz in a recent op/ed:
"In short, the plain and brutal truth is that if Iran is to be prevented from developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no alternative to the actual use of military force."["In short, the plain and brutal truth is that if Iran is to be prevented from developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no alternative to the actual use of military force."[
Nothing like a simple "either/or fallacy" to create an easy, bloody and wrong-headed approach to foreign policy. Podhortz's statement, to this humble blogger on this day, is wacked. We only recently have got the lid on in parts of Iraq and violence is increasing in Afghanistan. We need an international and if possible peaceful approach to nuclear proliferation. Playing Big Bad Bomber Boys over Iran will just about cement the image of our nation as a rouge superpower to avert and ignore whenever possible.
The assumption seems to be we are not already "on the offensive" even though we have already put half-a-trillion into Iraq, fighting a war that was based in more than part on poor intelligence estimates. Iran is a potential enemy; bombing them will make them a very real enemy. The wisdom of pre-emptive war is questionable, but making it into a primary tool of foreign policy is a recipe for folly.
If guys like Podhortz and Professor Dan Pipes, whose nearly phobic anti-Muslim bent is well covered in his blog if you have the stomach for it, are the brain trust Giuliani is going to rely on in the White House then we'd be better off if Bush and Cheney just stay in office for an unconstitutional Third Term. We've already done the Neo-Com school of response to the 9/11 attacks. And, frankly, being Mayor of New York or a District Attorney doesn't give you a lot of foreign policy background in thefirst place. (I think Queens has a Secretary of State but I'm not sure about Brooklyn.)
If you really want a Hawk to get your vote next November, vote for John McCain. He's not my guy; but at least he earned the right to have an unhinged bunch of armchair commandos around him courtesy of his extended stay at the Hanoi Hilton during the Vietnam War. All Guliani wants to do is ride his stature during 9/11 into the White House, and I fear, create a even bigger war in the Near East than most Americans would really want if they saw the details instead of just the jingoist rhetoric. I think we can do better.
I guess no one learned from the Soviets. You may roll through a Middle Eastern country initially but it is far more difficult to occupy the country. We do not need to engage in any more unprovoked conflicts. I understand why we initially went into Afghanistan we were provoked by 911. I am not quite as sure as to why we invaded Iraq the second time. There is no reason at the moment to attack Iran.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. Foriegn policy should not be based on attack now ask questions later. We do not need to start jumping piles and they trying to sort out the good from the bad. What has a war really ever settled?
Dunno. Seems to me like World War II was pretty conclusive.
ReplyDeleteI think it's a little dangerous to characterize foreign relations and foreign policy with a few glib rhetorical questions, because in international relations, there are no rhetorical questions.
The fact is that al-Qaeda and its political adherents want nothing more than to assert Sharia law over the entire Earth. They have political clout in Arab countries; these are the same countries, I might point out, that currently control the bulk of the planet's energy supply. Keeping the region stable--by routing out extremist forces, that is--is in the best interest of all the world's economic powers. (Not just the United States, mind you, but also Australia, Europe, Japan, Korea, and China.) Certainly we in the West (and perhaps in Asia) seem as insane to the Islamic extremists as they seem to us, but we have far more to lose than they, so we have to do what's necessary to sustain a stable and affordable energy supply until we can move to other sources of energy. It's not an option--it's an economic requirement. (Do we live too well? Perhaps we do--but that's a different debate for a different day.)
We invaded Iraq the second time to make a political point, I suppose, but also to depose a man who was harboring terrorists. I hope no one has forgotten that the terrorist Abu Abbas (Mohammed Zaydan) was taken prisoner in Baghdad back in 2003; he was being provided shelter by Saddam Hussein. My personal opinion is that Zaydan was not the first to be given shelter and support by Hussein; your opinion may differ, but you can't argue the known facts of Hussein's support for Zaydan, the PLO, and other terrorist organizations.
I do not intend to spend my latter years praying four times daily toward Mecca (under pain of death) because we were too damned lazy to combat Islamic fascists when we had the opportunity.
World War II ended the German and Japanese threats but started the cold war between Russia and the United States. t placed the Eastern Block countries under Russian control. It did not conclude everything. It did not wrap everything in a tidy bow.
ReplyDeleteAs I stated before I agreed with the initial invasion of Afghanistan. We need to figure out how to get out. We went into Iraq under the premise they had tools of "mass destruction" and he was capable of attacking us. Which we found later they did not. We cannot just run in a attack everyone that disagrees with our policies. Pretty soon we will be fighting everyone.
I do not plan on bowing to the West four times a day. The average Muslim does not want to conquer the world and impose Islamic practices on everyone.There are extremists in Islam just has there have been in extremists in Christianity. Christians have not been very accommodating to others in the past. Look back on the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition or the colonization of new worlds. They killed or enslaved cultures they found to be inferior.
We are advanced of the Islamic extremists as we might think. Less than a 150 years ago some Americans still condoned slavery. Woman were not allowed to vote 90 years ago and Afro Americans were still treated "separately but equal" less than 50 years ago. While we fought internally to end slavery we did not have a true all out war to solve our other issues. What if another country had thought we were wrong with our treatment of woman or the blacks in the 50's and 60's. Would that have made them justified to attack us?
We need to be careful before we start pushing our weight around. We do not want to be considered a bully. Bullies tend to get what they deserve in the end.
Guilliani is a poser for sure. At least McCain has conviction and some fiber, but I'd never vote for him.
ReplyDeleteThe trouble with politics is, the man you are looking at before office, is not the man who runs it when he gets in. We all need to give plenty of thought to who we can trust. Weigh up the pros and cons. I fear many people will vote as their family voted before them. Many won't change that vote, even if the man standing for that party is all hype and no substance.
ReplyDeleteWar is a messy business, both your county and mine, UK, didn't take account of the anarchy that would set in after the main attack took place in Iraq. The innocent people of the country lived in un policed areas, frightened of us, and their own militants. I voiced this on Q&A, and had emails from many Iraqis, and they were good people, wanting what we want for our families.
Heaven forbid that we should attack Iran, unless there is real danger to world peace. Even then, let us try to find another way to solve our problems. I wonder, will we ever?
Cassandra
Very well said Cassandrias. Power changes the men and women who seek it, and rarely for the better.
ReplyDeleteMichael Douglas said it best in the movie "The American President" when he had decided to bomb the Libyan Ministry building "this is the least Presidential thing I will ever do". Sending men to their deaths is not Presidential. No one person should be able to decide who lives and who dies. I really think we need to look at our current foreign policy.
ReplyDelete