<First it's the "Drug War," then it's "Vietnam." Neither are the same>
Those are historical analogies that "fit", to me. Certainly, all the conventional wars we have fought, don't "fit". What analogies would you prefer, and where do you see the correlations?
<The public knows we are in for a long, frustrating battle>
Actually, the depth of public support for the Administration's policies, has yet to be tested. We are borrowing the money to pay for it (rather than raising taxes or cutting other spending); we haven't even begun to add up the costs. The Afghan campaign was tailored to minimize (our) casualties, even at the expense of letting the enemy slip through our fingers. If we try to do a series of "nation-building", we will at some point provoke a popular nationalist uprising. We'll see how solid domestic support is, then. The test is yet to come.
<No one else is willing to "Bell the Cat" but us.>
What does that tell you? Should we "circle the wagons", or re-examine our methods? The Russians are our natural allies, they are fighting insurgencies all along their Southern border. The Chinese have a Muslim minority in their oil-rich East Turkistan. Yet neither supports us. There is an emerging global consensus (first the people, then the governments) that Bush is a greater threat to the world than Saddam, Bin Laden, and Kim, put together. Is that just because we've done an awful PR job? Is that just because the rest of the world is lazy cynical pacifists?
Yes, Yes, there is a Better Way. I'm not just complaining; I have a workable alternative. See post 72683. |
