Hi cnyndwllr; Re: "Our military manpower is stretched so thinly because of Iraq ..."
We agree that this is a limitation of US military power, and we agree that Bush has recognized it. Before the invasion of Iraq, I noted that we did not have enough troops to occupy the place. Bush didn't realize this and ordered the attack anyway. Now Bush understands that he doesn't have the military power to do anything, much less another Iraq. This is my point.
Before the war, the Neocons were talking about how easy Iraq would be with 10,000 troops, and how another 20,000 would be enough to turn Iran into a Paradise of Democracy, and that Syria, Saudi Arabia and North Korea were next. They ain't talking about that anymore. My point is that they ain't thinking about it anymore either.
Re: "The utter foolishness of Bush/Cheney with regard to the use of our forces in Iraq ..."
The failure of our troops to keep the peace in Iraq was not something that was widely expected before the war. If Kerry had been loudly proclaiming that our forces were going to have the crap shot out of them by resistance forces I'd be more impressed with him, but what did I hear? I see no evidence that Kerry was aware of the limitations of American power with respect to Iraq before the war either. In short, Kerry must have known that he was going to run for President, and if he had also known that the occupation was going to be so bloody he had plenty of time to make the predictions that would leave him looking so good now. He was silent.
My memory of Democrats arguing against the war was that the war would be immoral, or (Kerry's words) we should have had more allies, or that we risked having Saddam use his WMDs against us, or that the whole Middle East would get involved. None of this made much sense. If we had twice the troops in Iraq that we do we'd still be losing. There's no way in hell that Bush or Kerry or anyone else could have stuck 500,000 troops into Iraq in 2003. And all those other fears turned out to be phantoms.
So when you call Bush and company fools for getting into Iraq, you should at least admit that back before the war you yourself were talking about how the war was all about oil and how immoral it was that Iraqi oil was going to be stolen by the US and pumped at $10 per barrel: #reply-18714479 also see #reply-18205492 or #reply-18221432 or "Philosophical discussions aside, we certainly have the power to take the Iraqi oil and if we've learned anything about this administration, it's that if the ends justify the means then it's usually a go. Ed. #reply-18221950 You were still rattling on about how we were going to use Iraqi oil to bust OPEC even after the cheering crowds failed to materialize and any experienced military man should have been going "uh oh, where's the exit". For example see April 9, 2003 #reply-18818315
Compare this to my more realistic view that there was no way in hell that much oil would come out of Iraq due to the inevitable sabotage. I would be far more impressed with your calling Bush and co. fools if you hadn't been fooled into believing their fantasy that the US would gain control over Iraq's oil. Before you can call Bush a fool, you should prove that you understand the limitations of US military power better than them. So where's your post predicting the guerilla war in Iraq? Where did you notice the limitations on US military power back before the war? I looked and I couldn't find it. All I found was you talking about how we had the power, which makes you no different from Bush as far as understanding military power (though superior in understanding morality). Since then, the progress of the war has taught you a few things, but you really can't stand there and act like Bush was a fool for not knowing them before the war when you yourself didn't either.
Re: "What about the political and constitutional limitations? The invasion of another country takes the cooperation of Congress and that won't occur without the support of the American people."
Yes, this is another reason why it's unrealistic to expect the administration to make the same mistake twice. If Bush's team were even a fraction as stupid as you give them credit for, Kerry would be ahead in the polls.
Re: "The climate for the aggressive use of American military force is bad. But remember that it could change in an instant if we had a Russian school-like terrorist attack here at home."
No. Another terror attack in the US would prove that the war on terror was failing, and that would call into question the whole Iraq debacle. Plenty of experts have been testifying that the Iraq war made regress instead of progress in the WOT and those experts would end up trotted out saying "I told ya so" if there were another attack here.
Our situation is not similar to that of Russia. Chechnya is an ancient part of Russia. The rebellion there would be like us losing a chunk of Southern California. It will take a lot of blood before the Russians figure out that Chechnya isn't worth the effort. Iraq, on the other hand, is far away and nearly half the American public believes that the Iraq war hasn't helped in the war on terror. Having more terror in the US will simply convince them more so.
A better example would be the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. If the Israelis had reacted the way you suggest that the Americans would react, the Israelis would still be stuck in that boondoggle. Instead, what has been the reaction of the Israelis to 50 years of terror attacks? They're building walls to hide behind and that is exactly what the US would do.
Re: "Libya? It's true that he lifted sanctions. Of course he had no basis for invading and occupying Libya, especially after Libya gave up a nuclear program ..."
Of course Bush had no basis for invading and occupying Iraq, especially after Iraq gave up their nuclear program and welcomed inspectors back in. Compare. Now do you see how Libya is an example of the Bush administration acting differently?
Re: "Failing to push for sanctions against Iran? What does that tell us? First, he would need world support to secure such sanctions and the world had earlier become unhappy with the sanctions against Iraq."
Yes, the fact is that Iraq makes it more difficult for Bush to obtain world support for further military adventures. This suggests that such military adventures are less likely.
Re: "Second, the world has figured out what Bush means when he asks them to make resolutions and start on the sanctions path."
Yes, if Bush can't start on the sanctions path he can't do Iraq again. If Bush hadn't been able to convince the UN to write him some fig leafs, he'd never have gotten Congress or the British to sign up for the disaster. In the future, it will be far, far, far more difficult for Bush to start a war.
Re: "Why would Bush push for something that would likely fail and embarrass him?"
Actually, Bush did push for various UN declarations that failed and embarrassed him. You seem to be arguing that he's learned his lesson.
Re: "Punish North Korea? Not even Bush is stupid enough to act against N. Korea when there's nothing there that we want, the resistance will likely cause costly losses, and its neighbor China is the real long term threat."
Again, more evidence that Bush isn't going to start a war. Your whole post is mostly evidence against another war.
Re: "The best argument you can come up with for voting for Bush is that Kerry's Iraq position is similar to Bush's. That's weak."
No, my argument is that Iraq can only be a very minor issue as far as choosing between Bush and Kerry. I'll vote for Bush because of domestic concerns, not foreign policy.
Re: "Even if Kerry had the same initial position on Iraq, at least he hasn't yet revealed the Bush team's total inability to alter course or act competently."
Let me get this straight. You argue that Bush does not know what the limitations of US military power are, but you simultaneously argue that he hasn't done various things because the US doesn't have the military power to do it. Basically, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.
If you want to argue that Bush hasn't learned the limitations of US military power, you have to find examples where he exceeded the abilities of the US military since the Iraq war. You have no such examples. I, on the contrary, found a half dozen examples and you agree with me that these were actions that Bush would have liked to have ordered, but didn't because of lack of military power. What can I say.
Re: "And, like Pat Robertson, if the political party labels were reversed on Kerry and Bush and everything else remained the same, I doubt if you'd be voting for Bush either."
This is kind of confusing. I was going to agree with you, in that in the absence of significant differences in foreign policy, I will vote for the candidate who agrees with me more on domestic issues; but if "everything else remained the same" means that Bush would be promoting Bush's domestic policies and Kerry promoting Kerry's, then, no, I'd vote for Bush.
-- Carl |
