We should have paid more attention to alternatives. But foreign policy can't be built on 'coulda shoulda woulda' - it has to be built on current reality.
I am glad you are finally coming into the reality camp, Nadine. So here's the scoop on oil. It is a finite commodity; it is non-renewable; and there is an opportunity cost associated with being exclusively dependent upon it, especially if it is Mideast oil. Since the oil reserves are being depleted on a daily basis, sooner or later, the US will be confronted with the issue of finding an alternative source of energy to drive our economy. In the beginning this may be in the form of more efficient extraction and usage of fossil fuels, but some day the well will run dry.
So what better excuse is there to begin our transition away from Mideast oil and concentrate on alternative sources. This way, we will begin to drive away some of the dangerous politics which have cost us innumerable American lives while resolving the future prospect of energy consumption for our children. This isn't exactly rocket science and delaying the inevitable will only make the necessary adjustments further down the road that much more difficult and painful.
Here we have a difference of opinion. I do not believe that the Islamic fundamentalists can be contained while they have safe havens of operation -- and a nuclear armed Iraq would be such a safe haven. 9/11 changed the face of warfare -- containment in the future is going to be much more difficult than containment in the past.
I understand your point of view. I also understand this is a very difficult issue which may not lend itself with clear answers. Let's just agree to mutually respect each other's position.
Most liberals hated the thought of MAD, they just like it now because they can use it against Bush. Using deterrence against a weak enemy whom we could defeat outright is a sure-fire way to make ourselves weaker than we need be, both in reality and in the perception of all the other players in the game. Since I favor a strong America I don't favor this course. I suspect that most of those arguing for deterrence really favor a weak America, whether openly or secretly.
That's pretty funny. I don't consider myself a liberal. I voted for Bush--a decision I am really beginning to regret. I don't believe holding a policy of deterrence is necessarily a reflection of weakness just as I do not view aggressive confrontation as position of strength. The answer is dependent upon the circumstance.
But I do find it peculiar that you would believe individuals arguing for deterrence as favoring for a weak America. It is the sort of twisted logic which lead the pro-Israeli lobby to label Jews who criticize Israeli foreign policy as self-hating or Americans as anti-semites. It is quite odd.
Pre-emptive wars have worked quite effectively sometimes. Wars would not remain such an attractive foreign policy option, considering their huge risk, cost and destructiveness, if they did not have the power of decisively shaping the political framework in a manner far surpassing even the most effective diplomacy.
But even wars fail, Nadine, and sometimes the power to decisively reshape the political framework in a manner surpassing the most effective diplomacy may not be in our advantage or interest. And because of the high costs and destructiveness to begin with, war should be a last resort, not the first. |
