Exactly the way to go.

The US is going to be accused of being domineering anyway. Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.

David Warren names this US foreign policy principle "we don't care", but it already has a label 100 years old, applied by Teddy Roosevelt.

"Speak softly and carry a big stick"...

We could, for brevity, call it the "So?" policy. Never to be used on respectable governments in honest disagreements, but, when any and all others accuse us of whatever, and say we are evil, we just respond "so?"

Diplomacy is just another way of saying "talking it to death and no action". It doesn't work with children and it doesn't work with running a country.

I think a telling moment is when Mr. Bush was answering reporter's question maybe 6 months ago. In reply to something about Sadaam Hussein, he merely retorted "He heard what I said". I think that said it all.

Yes....we have a new attitude in Washington. Its a philosophy of substance over symbolism and actions speak louder than words.

It's a new day, and man does it feel good.

Finally some real leadership, instead of a monkey that does what ever will make the other monkeys of the world like him.

Belle,

I guess we can ditch the whole State Department then...well

Diplomacy is similar to a SWAT team negotiator, please do not tell me these men and women have never averted a crisis....with talk, plain talks can work wonders if used correctly.

Diplomacy is a tool and when used properly can work just like any other tool.

Futhermore, why do we not hear more tough talk from Cowboy Bush about N. Korea, seems his doctrine doesnt hold with threats that are real....

His doctrine doesn't hold period. You cannot apply it to countries like China, military powerhouses.... I would love to see the day when G.W. tries to bully China like he did Iraq....

Great argument, Mike. You're right. Why do anything if you can't do everything? Either make the whole world perfect instantly, or just forget about doing anything at all. All, or nothing, that's the cowboy way!

Mike,

You've really, really missed the point. The irony of your argument is that we should treat all nations in the same manner, which is exactly the kind of criticism lefties have tried to apply to the Bush administration prior to 9-11.

North Korea is a screaming child. They are quickly dismissed, their threats of military action are downplayed in a manner of "we're not concerned". That's the "So?" doctrine in action. North Korea can talk all it wants, we don't give a rats ass (we do, but we respond on OUR terms, not thiers). North Korea would love nothing more than to see another Clinton / Albright team come in with sweat on their brow, to sign a meaningless agreement that accomplishes nothing.

Instead, China is a middleman. Why? We don't care. They can play with us or without us. Do they want to be marginalized like the French? Of course not. They are a powerful nation, and oh yeah, those N Korean nukes are in THEIR backyard, no ours. Suddenly, China is an ally.

The doctrine is not to bully. The doctrine is to never bow down. Worked for Reagan. Works for Bush. Works for the United States.

Sucks for Democrats.

Mike, are you an American? Sounds like you hate Bush more than you like this country. :)))

Of course people need to negotiate but it can be carried way too far. The sight of Madeline Albright chasing down the hall after that man was very unsettling to me. But let's face it. There's always a deal-breaking point. As Kenny Rogers sang "you need to know when to hold as well as when to fold".

A SWAT negotiator is worthless without the SWAT team. A SWAT negotiator is worthless if no one believes that the SWAT team will act if the negotiator does not succeed.

And I see nothing wrong with being a cowboy. Straight talk, no screwin around with wordplay, and doin what you have to do, even if you don't like it.

Cowboy Bob says that Mike missed the point.

Impossible. Mike is omniscient, balanced, never tries to change the subject, always has the righanswer to the world's problems. NOT.

It seems that Mike is another dumb a__hole that thinks cowboy is a derogatory name. For your info cowboys have always been trustworthy, hard working, honest, love their country and always win out over the bad guys. It seems that Mike has finally seen the light.

Diplomacy does indeed have its uses, especially in averting wars. But the Neville Chamberlain approach is not always the right one, diplomats must occasionally tell their opposite numbers to pound sand - something State has not done since the twenties, when it was seduced by socialism and Communism. Truman and Regan may not have agreed on much else, but they seldom trusted State. Even Clinton allowed State to overrule him and send Carter to negotiate the 1994 agreement with the DPRK.

The "Cowboy" label is a badge of honor.

As the song goes, "Where have all the cowboys gone?"

The Cowboy label can be used as both a derogatory and flattering statement obviously.

In terms of FOREIGN POLICY it is clearly derogatory. Try again!! If you really think that the EU is calling GW a cowboy because they like him we are in trouble here.....

Furthermore, Belle I do not appreciate you questioning my patriotism. Questioning the patriotism of dissenters is a fascist tactic. Please do not even open that can of worms, atleast with me. I have worn the uniform and love my country.

harhar,

Yes, I do agree with your point that the negotiator's value decreases w/o the SWAT team. However, my point was simply that the negotiator had value, just like diplomacy does.

Diplomacy has its place, that was my point....it has value. It was simply a rebuttal of Belle's argument.

Potey,

I do not appreciate being called an a**hole. Please do not hide behind the guise of this media and act high and mighty. Just because I cannot see you face to face you feel you can throw names around. I can guarantee that you do not act the same in the real world. Please grow up!!!! I do not mind people shredding my opinions/arguments but I do mind people acting like toddlers and disrespecting others while hiding behind a monitor.

Mike,

"The Cowboy label can be used as both a derogatory and flattering statement obviously."

Yes, and this shows their cultural misconceptions. They don't understand us as much as vis-versa. They sling what they think is an insult, but is in fact a compliment.

"Diplomacy has its place, that was my point....it has value."

It is they, particularly the French, who are giving "diplomacy" a bad name. They lie to your face, try to mess you up while stabbing you in the back on the battlefield. Thus, whatever they say is no longer credible, all in the name of "diplomacy". Once diplomacy has spent it's ability, it's time to take action, else diplomacy no longer has value.

The current USA strategy is "spot-on". Actions always say more than words.

Mike,
when you suggest that you are looking gleefully forward to GWB coming out 2nd best in dealing with the Chinese, what do you mean to imply - if not that you dislike Bush more than you like the US? How did you want that statement to be interpreted?

IF I am not mistaken, Hans Blix is a career diplomat. He is a perfect example of what I was trying to relate earlier.

After one of his inspection teams pronounced a palace free of any WMD, a reporter asked if Sadaam Hussein was in the building. They didn't know!!!!!

Belle,

I think you may have misinterpreted what I was trying to say..

With regards to China, I am saying that GW's current policy does not hold water. We cannot bully miltiary heavyweights around like we did in Iraq. When dealing with countries which pose significant military threats diplomacy is more often than not the only option. Could we invade China? That is simply my point, that to avoid WWIII you can't always blow down the door.....

Mike, again you miss the point.

Nobody wants to go to war with China. For that matter, I don't believe anyone wants war with N Korea.

The doctrine is that we will not do what Clinton did in N Korea or Oslo - sign agreements that are doomed to fail for short-term gain. These are miserable failures of Clinton and his administration cost us credibility simply to gain "friends" in Europe and the UN. Sure, Europe "liked" us, but they stopped respecting us.

The Bush doctrine does not preclude diplomacy, it precludes weakness for the sake of being friends. Diplomacy is a game of give-and-take; the Bush doctrine simply stops giving it all away. This is NOT a frickin' popularity contest, Mike.

Clinton was the best diplomat the Europe ever had. It's a damned good thing we have an administration in power that is looking out for OUR interests for a change.

I am impressed that you would actually sell out your pincipals to make the rest of the world like us. That is a position of weakness that inevitably will lead to more 9-11s. It is critical that our enemies know that this paper tiger has claws.

It has been said - Chirac wants to be an equalizer or opposite pole versus the United States. This was long before Bush was in office, Mike. His "diplomacy" over Iraq was in bad faith from the beginning, because he knew a large display of American military power would make the world take notice, hurting France's dreams of European hegemony.

Having followed your philosophy, Saddam would be in power, Chirac would continue to backstab us, and the proxy war of Islamofascists would be gaining momentum against us. The truth remains: France would have worked against us no matter what. No amount of diplomacy would have caused Chirac to have cooperated with the Iraqi situation, his vested interests in the country are the proof.

I think, in the end, you want peace and security. In your motives, however, I wonder just how much you are willing to sacrifice of national security in order to get a Democrat back in office? You really do hope for failure, don't you? The truth remains, not since Kennedy has their been a democrat who could protect this country's national security for shit. It's just not their strength.

David Warren's essay is accurate I'd say, and the change is both refreshing and worrisome. The US has great power now, and this essay says, the Bush administration will use that power as it sees fit. That is a great responsibility. I'm glad we invaded Iraq, but what next? The ideals espoused to justify the invasion, freedom, democracy, human rights, etc. are very powerful, and I just hope Bush will push these as much as consistent with security.

Cowboy Bob,

After reading your response which was well formed and reasonable, I ask why do we not want to go to war with N. Korea?

We could argue they have WMDs they are a threat to the U.S.? In fact, I would argue they pose a much greater threat than Iraq ever did. They threaten an ally at this very minute... So in short, my question is why not North Korea under the current administrations way of doing business...

Mike,

I don't believe the Bush doctrine is to attack anyone who has WMDs. It was stated earlier this year that North Korea was at the beginning of the process, while Iraq was at the end. This means to me that diplomacy is one of the steps in the process, that could take years, but I would guess not as long as Iraq.

I think the war in Iraq will be a boon to diplomacy. It show that we are will to back up our position with force if necessary.

Mike:

I seem to recall that when N.Korea was included in the ole "axis of evil" people shrieked in horror but for months now the same people have been saying N. Korea the real prob. and not Iraq.

My foriegn policy predictions:

Syria - unlikely. Most likely covert ops.

N. Korea- Falling apart, difficult to do because of potential death toll in S.Korea. Remember the pop. is starving. Tough diplomacy.

Iran- No need to do anything because its imploding. The theocracy is how old and it is not working.

Saudi Arabia- If the Iraqi experiment succeeds there will be reforms.

France - Totally unlikely anything but diplomactic actions. Sigh.

Israel/Palestine- New state. Don't know if Bush will be able to finish before elections in US and it is far too early to tell if he can win re-election.

In my opinion, when Bush was elected to office he did not seem very interested in the middle east or central asia. He seemed more interested in Mexico, Canada, and domestic issues. I think the Iraeli/Palestine issue was way back burner. After all, Clinton, you can like him or not, spent much of his presidency on Israel and Palestine with no conclusions. (BTW, I don't blame C. for lack of success. Tough people on both sides.)

As I recall, Afghanistan was givien ample opportunity to give up OBL. I understand that Al Queda outnumbered the Taliban. I think Saddam Hussein was given ample opportunity to play nice but refused.

Could be wrong.

Okay guys, I'm not an American, I'm from the UK, and I've been following your arguments with interest. If you would like an outsiders view of what is going on, read on.

Clinton has taken a lot of criticism here, but make no mistake, the man was a really professional operator as a politician. Yes, he wanted other countries to think of America as being benign, but in some cases that strengthened his hand in negotiations. People are more willing to look for compromise when they are dealing with someone who goes out of their way to appear approachable. But I also accept that Clinton steered clear of the really big issues. He did not deal with Saddam because he was afraid to. He didn't know how to deal with something that big. Instead, he made a quiet pact to just leave all of the really tough stuff to the next administration. The only really thorny international issue he dealt with sucessfully was Northern Ireland, for which most of us in the UK are deeply grateful.

Now let's look at Bush. At first, his inablility to communicate effectlvely made him seem a little retarded to us outside the states. Since he came to power, especially since 9-11, he has grown into the job and I have to say at times I am impressed with his handling. But unlike Clinton, he is not a natural politician. He is nowhere near as smooth, and (whatever the truth) he comes across as a person who does not grasp the intricacies of world affairs. That's why he is often called a cowboy.

But like I said, he has been very good at handling the tough issues that Clinton avoided. His only problem is that he can't 'sell' his reasons for his policies as well as a natural politiian can. If Clinton had decided to invade Iraq (which he would never do), you could bet that the entire of the UN (including the French) would have given it their blessing. Such was the personal charsima and persuasive strength of Clinton.

|My point is, they are both good at different things. I personally feel that Bush needed Blair to help communicate the reasons for his decisions. Going to war is a big step, and a lot of people are always going to be against it, so being able to sell it to the public is crucial. Bush was just not very good at selling it, even though his strategy was sound.

As for the EU - I am technically a member of the EU, being in the UK, but I hate the bastards as much as you do. Most people in the UK loathe and distrust the EU, because we have to live with their crappy notions and dictats. Believe me, the people in the UK would much rather be part of a US coalition than an EU one. So remember - you're not alone!

Hello Cowboy Bob, this is a very one-sided view of history, and YOU are clearly the one to use "security" for partisan ends. First remember that the ultimate Democrat FDR was also the ultimate war president, far from "not their strength." And I think that Reagan arming Saddam Hussain and giving advanced weapons to the Afghan Mujaheddin who morphed into al Queda, did not further national security.

Nor did Bush 1 cementing our relationship with the Saudi sponsors of the Wahhabi hate-kuffar schools all over the world.

It is not partisan. I hope all Americans will support any US president FROM EITHER PARTY who acts internationally in furthering US ideals. Notice that most Democrats do support Bush in this. I'm sure Republicans would be as nonpartisan.

To Daniel Polwarth

I don't believe for a second that if Bill was still Prez that the French would have happily backed him. Bush, being Bush simply made Chirac's "performance" an easier sell. Chirac was/is in way too deep with Saddam, which is only now starting to trickle out.

"Futhermore, why do we not hear more tough talk from Cowboy Bush about N. Korea, seems his doctrine doesnt hold with threats that are real....

His doctrine doesn't hold period. You cannot apply it to countries like China, military powerhouses.... I would love to see the day when G.W. tries to bully China like he did Iraq...."

First off, the article makes it very clear that it is not Warren's opinion that this is "his" doctrine. In his words, "It emerges less from conscious thought than from years of frustrating trial and error, brought to a head in the Security Council just before the invasion of Iraq."

Secondly, Korea is different from Iraq in that during the Iraqi scenario, the US was in the proactive role. In the Korea scenario, *Korea* is in the proactive role. If we were to give the same "tough talk" to Korea that we did to Iraq, we would only show that the US could still be cajoled into certain positions, though the rules of how and where may have changed.

Ultimately, your accusations of inconsistency must be met by the Government's new policy: "So?"

What's wrong with being inconsistent?

Democrats do have a good national-security record, but it stopped after JFK's Berlin speech. That's been awhile, now, Marc. We're getting tired of waiting. The world isn't, though, at least the part that wish us ill. They like the new Democrats just fine! We armed Saddam, too, but only a few percent, and under vastly different conditions--he was the enemy of our enemy, and then he changed, and we quit arming him. With the Afghans, we were up against a rampant USSR marching to the Persian Gulf's global oil reserves. Again, it was the right thing to do AT THE TIME we did it. Then, the Afghans changed. We could've done better, sure, but it was nowhere near as feckless as you present it. And you know it.

"And I think that Reagan arming Saddam Hussain..."

Why do people persist in repeating this untruth?

The USA did NOT arm Hussein. Russia, France, and China supplied the vast majority of the arms. This is well documented. Even if we didn't otherwise know beforehand where Saddam got his weapons, the wars with Iraq have amply revealed that all of their tanks are Russian; their missiles are Russian, French, and Chinese; their planes are Russian and French; etc.

The USA did provide advice and minor assistance to Iraq during their war with Iran, because we did not wish Iran to conquer Iraq. The USA also provided advice and minor indirect assistance to Iran during their war with Iraq, because we did not wish Iraq to conquer Iran.

But if you want someone to blame for Saddam Hussein, then you should direct your attention to the French and the Russians.

Mike,

Just out of curiousity, if we had invaded North Korea instead of Iraq, would you have been opposed to that as well?

Just because I'm in favor of invading Iraq does not mean that a similar situation in any other circumstance needs the same exact approach. So, while the DPRK is similar to Iraq in that they are a threat and are developing nukes, North Korea differs from Iraq in that:
* They have about 18K artillery pieces which can hit Seoul. Some are suspected to carry chemical weapons. Seoul could be levelled in the initial days of any invasion.
* North Korea is running out of fuel and food. They are bargaining from a position of desperation. Every day that we refuse to negotiate makes them weaker.
* Starving them of fuel and food may lead them to some crazy actions. The Russians and Chinese fear this at least as much as we do and there's no reason why we shouldn't use that to our advantage.

In short, though, if you accept David Warren's idea of the "we don't care" policy, that's completely consistent with saying to the DPRK "we don't care" about your nukes - we'll be defended from them anyway with the Patriot missiles.

Ariel,

It just seems that you put out the "bigger fire first," all the what if's about WMDs that apply to Iraq obviously can apply to N. Korea. I would support disarming N. Korea. However, to disarm them would require a lot more effort and thinking power than Iraq. I am just saying we should have came up with a long-term solution to the "bigger fire" before even thinking about Iraq.

The North Korean crisis could start WW III if not handled properly. The Iraqi threat isn't even in the same league. However, it is more of a gamble politcally and militarily and it does not suprise me that the admin downplayed this threat and decided to go after Iraq.

Nukes trump conventional WMDs, especially when they can be sold to the highest bidder. Biological WMDs are nasty but few have the technology to use them to their full potential where they would actually be worse than nukes.....

I just felt the need to clarify my position on the bio weapons. From my best understanding, I am a layman obviously, but bio weapons just like nukes need a critical mass, (infected %of the population) in this case, to actually do big time damage, to be in the same league as nuclear weapons.

To do this would normally require infecting a huge venue or area of a city, which at the present moment in time is not the easiest thing to pull off.

Mike,

"I would support disarming N. Korea."

How would you go about doing so? Keep in mind that IAEA inspectors were there for the last nine years or so. Until such tim as the DPRK chose to report on its nuke development, the IAEA inspectors had not found anything.

"I am just saying we should have came up with a long-term solution to the "bigger fire" before even thinking about Iraq."

And I disagree. There will always be a bigger fire - some might argue China, the Saudi entity, France, etc. If your prescription had been followed, the Cold War (aka WW III) would, at best, not have been won as quickly, and, at worst, would have cost millions (if not billions) of lives as we attacked the USSR in a full frontal assault instead of little battles at the periphery.

Furthermore, in this case, the "big fire" is literally starving to death.

"The North Korean crisis could start WW III if not handled properly."

Actually, WW IV has already started. Perhaps it started with the falling of the Shah; perhaps it was 9/11. Regardless, there's a large portion of the world that considers itself to be involved in a Holy War against the infidel Americans.

The DPRK is a sideshow. They're just trying to find a way to get food and fuel. The only thing they can export for this is weapons. Since we don't want that to happen and we have food and fuel, a negotiated outcome is possible. Putting the screws down on them by letting them starve, showing that we have a military option by invading Iraq, etc is all a part of the negotiating strategy; of course, invading Iraq also had to do with it being identifiable with the core proponents of WW IV and within striking distance of their country.

"Nukes trump conventional WMDs"

You should probably know that WMDs are not ever considered conventional.

I think you are underestimating the amount of fear that bioweapons would generate. Even if they only killed (or infected) 1% of a city, the other 99% would be in a panic.

How many wars can we fight until we run out of money. No one seems to think that the US could ever run out of money but if we stop diplomancy & resort to war as a leverage we will run out of money. Ask the British Empire, & many others that thought they had the answer to all the world problems.

I will repeat my point that national security is nonpartisan. Many posters here at Command Post seem to over and again push the Dems bad for security, Repubs good. It's just not true. International affairs is very very detailed of course and anyone can select data to support any position. I just wanted to list some examples. The Repubs may be more macho on the average, but that is not always for the best.

I will repeat my point that national security is best served under the banner of the best US ideals. I don't agree that it was the was "the right thing to do AT THE TIME" but I agree it seemed expedient and was certainly muscular. It was certainly well intentioned from a US point of view, however against our ideals.

JB,you can't rewrite history as much as you may try. Michael Dobbs, Washington Post, 29 December 2003 details how the US led by Donald Rumsfeld provided intelligence, cluster bombs, facilitated Iraq's chemical and biological miltiary technology to Saddam Hussein. One quote: "It was a horrible mistake then, but we have got it right now, says Kenneth M. Pollack, a former CIA military analyst and author of The Threatening Storm, which makes the case for war with Iraq."

Yes, France, etc., sold Saddam weapons for cash. The US helped him out to advance our "national security". Go figure!

marc,

"Yes, France, etc., sold Saddam weapons for cash. The US helped him out to advance our "national security". Go figure!"

Three simple questions: Would the world have been better off if Khomeini (and Iran) had ruled Iraq for the last 1.5 decades? Would the Iraqis have been better off if Khomeini (and Iran) had ruled Iraq for the last 1.5 decades? Would the US's national security have been better off if Khomeini (and Iran) had ruled Iraq for the last 1.5 decades?

Don't stop there, Ariel. In 1979 we were stagflated and Carter-demoralized when USSR went into Afghan. Granted in hindsight we know how weak USSR was economically, but then, we didn't know--and besides, even had we known, they could've been even more reckless and dangeruose BECAUSE of their internal probs. It was very serious, the '73 oil embargo, OPEC ascendant, and the USSR knocking on the door to Iran/Iraq/Persian Gulf. We couldn't've stopped their tank armies then, it would've gone very bad for us had not the CIA started pouring it on to help the Mujahadeen. The weapons we gave 'em made the diff. With out them, the USSR might never have collapsed. This is conventional wisdom, not me blabbing. Now, when I hear people like Mike saying that we "made" Osama and his gang, implying that we are careless gunslingers who got what we deserved with this Terror War, all I can think is, Oh, it's TOO bad that intelligent, articulate people will ignore the reality of factual history in order to make points--points which are automatically invalid if not constructed from a valid premise to begin with. History, objective history, does exist. Yes, interpretations of significance vary, you bet, but you DO have to start the argument with the facts.

Well, since you ask, yes, yes, and yes. I hardly think Iraq could have been worse off. And How could it have hurt US security so much, other than the price of oil?

I think that Iran had to try theocracy sometime or other. Khomeini was a natural Iran hero who was part of the dynamic of the country. The Shah was a brutal dictator perhaps no better than Saddam. Worse in one way, everybody knew him as a US puppet and this hurt national pride. Now there are signs that Iran is coming out of the theocracy experiment to choose a healthier national path.

But hey, what do I know? Not much about these things. But I have the strong feeling that US security is best by acting only on professed US ideals, as Bush has done in Iraq. I can't think of a counter-example. What did we gain by killing Lumumba?

Yes Buddy you are right that in 1979 we didn't know what the future would bring. Would the USSR roll into Iran and Iraq and Saudi Arabia? I doubt it but who knows. That's more reason to act under the banner of the best US ideals, instead of twisting to the immediate perceived situation. Of course we didn't make Osama, but of course we contributed to the world situation that made him.

BTW I personally don't think the USSR could have conquered Afghanistan any more than the US Viet Nam.

Sorry to hog, but, gotta answer Marc's "And how could it have hurt U.S. security so much, other than the price of oil?" Briefly, The Greater Iran would've swallowed Iraq, and then stopped? It would've jihaded the entire MidEast, touched of nuclear war when the final attack on Israel brought us in against a USSR with eyes on the whole prize. And the $100/bbl oil forecast under this type scenario would've starved out the third world, set off a world-wide depression, and a real hot World War. Please don't say we have no stake in these external conflicts, the world oil reserves are in the Mid East, and everyone on the globe has a stake in what happens there. Sure, we wish it weren't so---but it IS so.

marc,

Here's some graphical differentiation between the Shah's Iran and the mullahocracy's Iran:

http://badraie.com/beforeafter.htm

"I hardly think Iraq could have been worse off."

I suppose you're aware that most of Iraq's minorities (IIRC about 40% of the pops) would probably not get a great deal from the Iranians.

"The Shah was a brutal dictator perhaps no better than Saddam."

Yes, but Khomeini was far worse.

"Would the USSR roll into Iran and Iraq and Saudi Arabia?"

Well, there's certainly evidence that the USSR backed many anti-Western terrorist groups. Even if they didn't roll in, they might still have effective control. But this is definitely getting into the realm of speculation, so I can't claim to know.

It's fairly safe to assume that Iran (+Iraq) would have expanded a bit more and might have made the US's life very difficult through control of oil and terrorism.

Maybe you're right, Marc, about USSR vs Afghan--but the combatants themselves say the Hind Choppers full of Spetsnaz were winning, when CIA started shipping Stingers and Hinds started dropping in dozens every operation. And the Polish plumber Lech Walesa, and the Pope, and Reagans Pershing missile NATO upgrade, all helpede kill USSR--but when we were arminf Osama's progenitors (the point of this discussion) NONE of that had had any noticeable effect yet. No Stingers, USSR owns the Persian Gulf, Western Europe accomodates, USA goes isolationist, and the dark side wins the world. And, it was very close, as it was...we were lucky. But, you do argue very well, Marc, even if you do tend to uinderemphasize the nature of the crisis as it was before we coped with it.

sophia wrote:

"How many wars can we fight until we run out of money."

At this rate ($100B/war), a very large number. You may be aware that American defense spending is about 3-5% of GDP and has been for the last twenty years or so. For comparison purposes, during WW II, about 1/3 - 1/2 of GDP was spent on the war; recall that we came out of WW II with a booming economy.

Cost of the war so far is less than half the direct cost of the 9/11/01 attacks. And the cost of lost economic activity that would've self-generated except for the fear and anxiety and loss of optimism about the future that 9/11 caused, is real, real cost, and not even measured in these comparisons. This neg. value is a surmise, but a good one, based on the behavior of markets and money movement velocity. If losing entire countries (2 so far) prevents another market-crashing national panic inducing 9/11-sized terror act--and remember, another one will start folks thinking they will be endless forever--then the Iraq war will have been on of those investments that you hate to make, but simply must make. Like, heart surgery, for instance.

Buddy, this "...Western Europe accomodates, USA goes isolationist, and the dark side wins the world.", especially the "USA goes isolationist", strikes me as a real possibility if the UN doesn't start to come around. The US hasn't been isolationist in a long time, but it's an impulse that never lies far beneath the surface. If France, etc., keep up the pressure it could get ugly. I think Americans are well and truly fed up.

Mike,

Sorry to respond so late. I wrote about North Korea over a month ago, and several predictions have come true.

http://www.axisofweasels.com/blog/archives/000035.html

Please review it. We're trying to avoid a "unilateral" approach to N Korea, I can't understand why the left is bitching and moaning so much. ;-)

One thing I noted - North Korea is a more dangerous undertaking than Iraq. There is little doubt that we would lose many more American lives taking on North Korea vs. Iraq. Mostly, however, Seoul would be pummeled. Kim Il Jong is not only as Evil as Saddam, he's just plain nuts. He's Charles Manson with an even worse haircut.

The biggest thing to note - North Korea wants to bring us to the table by screaming war. They want us, and only us. We do not have to follow that. In fact, we shouldn't. We must do it our way, or they will continue to come back like a bad infection threatening nuclear war everytime they run out of oil and food to feed their military. They are starving, they have no "treasure" as Iraq does, and we must do this on our terms, if for no other reason, to NOT do it on their terms.

Marc - sorry, but I strongly believe that security has become a partisan issue. FDR, Truman, and JFK were great for security. It's been downhill ever since. None have been as bad as Jimmy Carter, but Johnson and Clinton made some really dumb moves. I will give Clinton N Ireland, however. I will also make an exception - Lieberman would be good for security. Kerry still has ghosts that he hasn't dealt with, I don't know if he's up to the big decisions. He seems too sad. "Why the long face, John?" ;-) The rest of the Democratic party has their liberal base to deal with, and that means bad, liberal decisions. You can't protect our country when the people you count on for votes are shitting in the streets in the Bay area.

Some misinformed person said that Reagan armed Iraq. Do your homework. And don't forget, Reagan was dealing with the biggest threat of them all - the USSR. We won, by the way, didn't we? Reagan and Truman had more to do with that than anyone.

Ariel and Buddy wisely brough up the 1978 revolution in Iran as the start of this war - absolutely agreed. This is a 25-year old war against Islamofascism. 9-11 is just when we started to fight back. We have a long way to go. However, Carter and later Clinton left the world with a view that we were somehow "paper tigers". I hope we have the world's attention right now. Right now, it's not important to be known as good diplomats. It's important to be known as someone that you simply don't fuck with. 9-11 could have made us seem like whipping-boys; instead, we look like the awakened giant that we are.

Also, someone mentioned that Bush couldn't sell his plan. I agree. The man is not the great communicator of Reagan or Clinton. But that man's got resolve, and that's what matters right now.

Gotta say it: Mike, you may have worn the uniform. John Kerry wore the uniform.

Just remember, Benedict Arnold wore the uniform. So did McClellan, the Union general nominated by the Democrats to run against Lincoln on a surrender to slavery platform. So did Sgt Akbar as he rolled the grenades into his commanders tents.

Anyone can wear the uniform. To live what that uniform stands for is a tad harder. And every word you post says to me you fall short.

SDN you can go to straight to hell!!!

Calling me a Benedict Arnold is too much. Don't apply your fascist logic to me.

Insulting my patriotism and my love of country is the lowest denominator. Congratulations you have reached it!

SDN,

Furthermore your argument is essentially saying if you dont agree with me then you must be a traitor?

What kind of sick logic is that?

God Bless America and Dissent

SDN,

Furthermore have you even ever wore the uniform before, if so you should have a better understanding of why comments like yours are so infuriating and off base as to warrant me posting a reply three times.

Not everyone agrees with Thou but that does not make us traitors.

Cowboy Bob,

In terms of us being perceived as paper tigers, I'd make a couple of minor changes to your statement. In the Islamic world, we were perceived as paper tigers, not just thanks to Carter and Clinton, but also thanks to Reagan. The Beirut barracks bombing and the hijacking of the Achille Lauro both happened on his watch and without a response; in Reagan's defense, he was focused on the bigger issue of the Soviet Union which probably precluded considering the client states. Reagan is a mixed bag, though, since he did respond to the Berlin nightclub bombing by attacking Libya and nearly getting Khaddafi.

I just wouldn't make it a completely Rep vs Dem issue, though I largely agree that Dems are generally more interested in gutting the military (not including Lieberman and a few others) while Reps are generally interested in preserving it.

Ariel,

Good points. During the Reagan administration, I was much more interested in the USSR than Islamofascists. Kind of strange to look back now and realize we were fighting two wars - The Cold War (aka WWIII) and the War against Islamofascism (aka WWWIV). A lot of response that Reagan could have taken were tempered by the perception in the USSR, and possible escalation into oblivion.

Mike, I don't believe for one moment you are a traitor. SDN is right, however, that wearing the uniform (or not wearing it) does not automatically put you on the right side of these issues. Ariel is also right - being on the left or right doesn't automatically make you wrong or right.

I still stand by the last 40 years of history, which have shown that the Republicans are better for national security than the democrats. Furthermore, the far left is taking over the Democratic party, and I fear that the candidate from the left will be as crazy on issues as a paleo-conservative like Buchanan on the other end of the spectrum.

Back to the topic at hand, however, the US position toward the world today is the right one for a country that has been attacked. We could very easily start obliterating our enemies (and backstabbing friends). This is a toughness we haven't flexed since Reagan, and it is sorely needed.

Cowboy Bob,

Anyone can wear the uniform. To live what that uniform stands for is a tad harder. And every word you post says to me you fall short

I was reacting to the above statement which is a personal attack on myself. Not believing in this war does not mean that I did not live up to the standards of wearing the uniform. That is pure B.S.
I agree it does not make you right in argument. However, what SDN said is a much different story....

"Kind of strange to look back now and realize .."
We should all look back once in a while with open mind. History often turns out different from what we perceived at the time.

Soviet missles were the ultimate serious threat to the US, moreso than Hitler ever was and moreso than the Persian Gulf oil spigot is (I believe we can thrive on 1/3 the oil if we absolutely had to). The US had to be careful to draw hard lines around the use of force. We were lucky too.

But communism as a social system was never a serious threat, turns out. It doesn't work. It is not an effective way to organise human endeavor. We should have trusted ourselves and known that, but we didn't. Many on both left and right thought communism was superior, for better or for worse. In fact, once the Soviet bloc saw the prosperity of the west it was only a matter of time (yea television!).

No, Reagan didn't defeat the USSR. It would have happened anyway. If human nature were different and economic activity throve under communism, the USSR would still be there.

Now the overkill constraint on the use of force is gone. It took a while to realize it. But comes a great responsibility as well, to act with fundamental morality. So far so good, I'm very pleased. We are in fact the good guys. But if the US comes to be seen as a rogue nation we will eventually pay a large price. It is too late for Empire based on power.

Cowboy Bob,

Couldn't agree more.

marc,

Feel free to reply to my replies of yesterday.

And a swing and a clean miss by Mike.....

Lately, a trick used by several liberals both public and private is to say that because they were in the military no one can question the sincerity of their attacks on the actions of this country. What I did was to point out that anyone can wear a uniform (with historical examples of slime that has done so), and then tell Mike that I think he would fit right in with that company, based on the posts I've seen.

You can tell when you hit the target by the pained squeals that emerge.....

SDN,

Dissent is not an attack on this country. Only a Nazi like you would think so... Furthermore only a Nazi like you would question a service member's patriotism if they disagree with your opinion.

And this "trick" you are talking about Goebbels once mentioned. However, Goebbels basically said what you are saying, that to get a country to do what you want, tell them they are in danger and question the patriotism of dissenters. Please say hi to Satan for me when you get there

As far as slime, goes you definitely form a ball.....

OK Ariel. I'm not a particular expert on Iran. To exaggerate, It strikes me as a very inward looking place, a world unto themselves. Like China, Russia, and yes the US. They don't care too much what is going on elsewhere unless it is forced down their throats, and likewise they don't blame other countries for their problems. I'm not prepared to compare the actions of the Shah with Khomeini, But Khomeini was certainly home-grown whereas the Shah was a US puppet. The Shah was a product of the US war on communism, and perhaps Khomeini's authority was an over-reaction to the Shah. In any case, the Iranian theocracy is playing out without really too much impact on the US.

I never saw Iran as expansionist. I thought Saddam invaded first and Iran fought back. Maybe Iran would have annexed Iraq, a Shiite majority country, but no further, as I hardly think they would have reopened their age-old conflict with the Arabs.

This is all very interesting. Maybe the American concensus in favor of the war in Iraq will allow us to rethink the cold war from a fresh perspective.