dit dit dit dah
This post by Varifrank sums up my fears about John Kerry and the war on terror.
posted by Dave Justus | 10/10/2004 09:06:00 AM
Justus for All
Current Events, Politics, Ethics, and Random Junk
Personal Friends
Blog Friends
- A&W
- Broken Quanta
- The Cassandra Page
- Crosblog
- Emily's Craziness
- Environmental Republican
- Faynights
- Fine? Why Fine?
- Generic Confusion
- Hear Oh Israel
- honestpartisan
- Les Jones
- Life in a Handbasket
- Lightbody on Politics
- MacBoar's World
- My Little Circle
- Nicolas Farley
- Of the Mind
- The Probligo
- Reasonably Ascertainable Reality
- Reclaim Your Brain
- Riding Sun
- The Roost
- Running for the Right
- Sandcastles and Cubicles
- Smack My Booty
Daily Visits
- Google News
- InstaPundit
- Healing Iraq
- The Bleat
- Screedblog
- Vodkapundit
- The Volokh Conspiracy
- Belmont Club
- Powerline
- Day by Day
- Dead Parrot Society
Archives
- 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004
- 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004
- 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004
- 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004
- 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004
- 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004
- 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004
- 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005
- 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005
- 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005
- 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005
- 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005
- 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005
- 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005
- 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005
- 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005
- 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005
- 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005
- 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005
- 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006
Trackback by 
3 Comments:
1971 Kerry said: "we cannot fight communism all over the world, and I think we should have learned that lesson by now."Varifrank said: Kerry believed communism must be tolerated.I say: Kerry believed that Vietnam-esque engagements are not a solution to communism.Hindsight says: Vietnam-esque engagements did not defeat Soviet communism; detterence, diplomacy, and setting a higher standard defeated Soviet communism.Analysis: You can reasonably interpret 1971 Kerry so that he was correct, or you can broaden the scope of his statement and say he was defeatist. All I did was take 'fight communism around the world' to mean 'engage in innumerous proxy wars around the world'; in contrast, varifrank took 'fight communism around the world' to mean 'engage with communism in any manner'.
2004 Kerry said: "There are 60 countries around the world with al-queda cells in them. Many of these countries have clearer ties to alqueda than did Iraq. Did we invade Russia? Did we Invade China?"Varifrank says: Kerry is echoing his 1971 statements, and doesn't want to engage al-Queda.I say: Kerry is saying that invading every country that happens to host al-Qeada is absurdly impracticalHindsights says:...
Analysis: My interpretation of Kerry is once again less radical than Varifrank's. I believe (and believe that Kerry and most other people believe) that America ultimately has limited military resources and can't invade every country that happens to include a link to some terrorists. But I also believe (...) that we can supplement our miliary resources by taking appropriate actions in appropriate circumstances. We can engage diplomatically with friendly countries to help them police their own borders. We can pressure and threaten unfriendly nations until they concede to our will on the issue. And, as last resort, we may invade those nations who respond to neither method. Ignoring which category Iraq fits in, is that view reasonable? Does it with what Kerry said? Is it consistent with Kerry's strong, pre-9/11, stance against terror? Is it defeatist?
Comments are welcome, but let's please not have this devolve into a discussion about where Iraq lies. Many think Iraq was still in the second category, while many others think Iraq was in the third category, but I don't think that either position is germain to the discussion: is Kerry defeatist or pragmatic?
I hate blogger comments. Italics format properly in preview, and then run together when you actually post. I apologize for the poor formatting of that last post.
I grant you that you can interpret Kerry's statements and positions in various ways. Your interpretation is plausible. Unfortunately, so is Varifranks. I won't say categorically that Varifrank is right, but it is a possibility and that possibility worries me.
I don't want to get into a discussion on what defeated communism save that our cold war policies in total did the job. We don't get to know what would have happened if we had done anything differently and people disagree as to which tactics were effective and which were ineffective.
My answer for the 60 countries with Al-Qaeda cells is we invade any and all of them that won't solve the problem on their own. Pakistan has ties to Al- Qaeda but is working to solve the problem, hunting down and killing the bad guys. Iran has ties to Al-Qaeda and is not solving the problem. If they don't change their tune, we will have to invade and change their policy for them. Thats what 'you are either with us or against us' means, and it is the right policy. Each country that we make an example of in this way makes it less likely we have have to make an example of the next country on our list.
Diplomacy is important, but the big stick needs to be present for diplomacy to be effective.
I believe we could, if needed, invade all these countries. In WWII about 30% of our GDP went into fighting the war. An effort on a similar scale today would probably allow the U.S. to establish world hegemony (probably on a Roman client-state model rather than occupation of all these nations). Now, I am not suggesting this, it would suck for a lot of reasons, but it is in the realm of the possible. The more nations who are allied with Al-Qaeda believe that we would do that, if needed, the less likely it is that we will have to.
Post a Comment
<< Home