Of course there are other views. And the notion of Carter "speaking eloquently for peace" sounds great. But the reality is that peace is created not through Jimmy Carter weakness, but through Ronald Reagan strength. Not through Bill Clinton weakness, but through George Bush strength (41 or 43, it doesn't matter).
As you said, you have your view, I have mine. What I see is that peace requires more than an ability to wage war. You need look no further than the two world wars of the 20th century. In WW I, the allies took the traditional route and kicked Germany's butt and then did what is typical of human nature.......exacted huge reprisals from Germany until it broke her and a Hitler was bred into power.
After WW II the allies took a different tactic; the much harder one. They helped in the rebuilding of Germany with much different and much more positive results.
You say starting a war is a sign of strength. I say it may be a sign of weakness; to whit, starting wars tends to be the forte of the planet's dictators, not the planet's democracies. There is nothing easier for a nation of our military stature to go around swatting down nations of lesser capabilities. The harder route is to help elevate these same nations to the next highest level. We did well with the Marshall Plan and have faltered ever since. Mr. Bush looks very much like one of those presidents who can do war easily but nation building seems to be outside his capabilities.
As for Reagan, yours is not the common view but rather the one held by fervent Reps. Most other Americans as well as most Europeans believe the old USSR fell from its own gross negligence and overspending.
Throughout history, which weak president is remembered as "great"? Or do we remember as "great" those who make bold, difficult, often unpopular, decisions?
We remember the leaders who make the difficult decisions. Its the Lincolns and the FDRs who are remembered for their struggles to make the right decision, not the ones who are ready to go to war at the drop of a hat.
The decision to potentially take our nation to war in a pre-emptive fashion is without question bold and difficult.
What is so fukking bold and difficult? Its not all that much harder than taking a fly swatter after a fly. This war is ours to lose three times over. You dramatize and glamorize the absurdity of the Iraq enterprise to the point where your feet leave the earth.
This fundamental change in our way of doing business is called for by changing times, and none of the liberal presidents since Kennedy could have had the guts to make such a call. This, is leadership.
And I contend guts is not involved in this one. Guts is England taking on Hitler and the Third Reich when all others had fallen. Guts is the colonists fighting England for their independence. Guts was David standing up to Goliath.
However, in this case, we are Goliath....there is little, if any, guts involved!
Is it right or wrong? You have your view, and I have mine. But there is no question that we are seeing true leadership on a level not seen since Reagan, and it may well go further back than that.
Then I am afraid the level is not all that high.
ted |
