Sunday, December 30, 2007

The Incredible Success of the Bush Doctrine

On an earlier post, I made the comment that Benazir Bhutto’s assassination should remind voters that we still live in a very dangerous world, and we need a grown-up as president with the wisdom and the strength of character to utilize our military to protect our interests and our citizens. I went on to say that this rules out all Democrat candidates.

Since some either do not understand what this means (or PRETEND not to understand), lets explore this further. All through the 1990’s, a Democrat administration dealt with Islamic terrorism as if it were a problem for the civilian criminal justice system to handle, and refused to deal with Osama Bin Laden. They also failed to send support to our troops under fire in Somalia, leading to a massacre and a shameful pull-out (Blackhawk Down). This policy and actions got us a series of horrendous terrorist acts and the murder of thousands of our citizens and of others – including the attacks on the Khobar Towers, on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, on the USS Cole, on the World Trade Towers in 1993 and eventually to the horrors of 9/11.

President Bush changed this policy after 9/11 and sent our military to hit the Islamic terrorist groups where they had training camps and were supported with money, training and refuge. We have defeated the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan; we have defeated them and other terrorist groups in Iraq and cut off their funding and access to oil revenues and oil supplies; we have turned aside Libya and North Korea in their quest for nuclear weapons; we have possibly slowed Iran’s similar quest; and we have made it possible for government forces to defeat the Islamists in Ethiopia. Throughout this period the Bush Administration has somehow managed to remain on good terms with other Islamic states and kept the oil flowing.


Since all major Democrat candidates for the presidency have vowed to pullout our troops from Iraq (some say Afghanistan too) and return to the former policy of dealing with the Islamic butchers with our civilian criminal justice system, I call them not-grown-ups who will be risking the lives and fortunes of Americans everywhere. I call people who think they can right 1000 year-old religiously based disputes by discussing the issues with brutal dictators who thrive on these feuds and violence – I call them not-grown-ops who live in a fantasy land.

The major Republican candidates are the only ones who have vowed to continue the President’s policy with respect to Islamofascism. We need to continue this policy, knowing full well that there will always be some sort of terrorist activity among Muslims around the world no matter how much we succeed. Militant Muslims seem to know only one way to deal with people who do not agree with them, and resistance to modernity and women’s rights runs deep.

Iraq says most of Al-Qaeda network destroyed in 2007

Dec 29, 2007 (Excerpt)

"The Iraqi interior ministry lauded its achievements over the past year on Saturday, saying that 75 percent of Al-Qaeda's networks in the country had been destroyed in 12 months.

Ministry spokesman Abdul Karim Khalaf also outlined sharp falls in the numbers of assassinations, kidnappings and death squad murders.

He told a news conference that increased patrols along the borders with Saudi Arabia and Syria had slowed infiltration by militants and played a key role in Iraq's improved security situation.

"We have destroyed 75 percent of Al-Qaeda hide-outs, and we broke up major criminal networks that supported Al-Qaeda in Baghdad," he said.

"After eliminating safe houses in Anbar province, which used to be Al-Qaeda's base, we moved into areas surrounding Baghdad and into Diyala province. Al-Qaeda headed north and we are pursuing them," he said."

Labels: ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


At 10:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree. Ironic that one of Rudy G's commercials reminds us of the type of things that Islamofacists respond to.
"Within One hour of Ronald Reagan taking the Oath of Office, the American Hostages were released after 444 days."

Some might say it was just to insult Jimmy Carter, but I tend to think they knew the leadership style of Ronald Reagan.

It also reminds me of how quickly Ronald Reagan dealt with Mormar Khadafi with that blazing airstrike that quickly put him in his place.

Notice how quickly he also responded to George W Bush's actions against Saddam Hussein.

Yes Actions speak louder than words to some folks. It's one of those things we learned in the playground when we were children dealing with the bully.

At 5:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A grown up approach toward Islamic terrorism would have been a full scale war against their principal hideout, Afghanistan, not an invasion of a nation that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Islamofascist is a catchy word, but Mussolini said that fascism should more properly be called "corporatism" since it was, under Mussolini, a blending of state and corporate power. Using that definition we could more properly call the U.S. under the current administration, "Fascist" than the Islamic terrorists who threaten us.

The Islamists believe that, if they can provoke a religious war with the West, they are guaranteed by Allah to win, thus spreading Islam throughout the world. By attacking them, we advance the spread of militant Islam among the Muslim masses helping to bring about the religious war they seek. Caution is the better part of valor.

At 5:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I disagree. There is probably no stopping the extremists who want to battle the west, but no form of appeasement works. It begs the question whether going on offense is a better strategy. I think it is. I think the US (as powerful as it is) has shown enormous restraint through the decades. We could easily take what we need but we do not typically do that.

There were a lot of things wrong with and in Iraq (no relation to 9/11 except the beneficial timing), but I think our main intent all along was to get in there so we could build military bases for longterm presense. This is probably a good stategy for us given the instability of the region. The main thing going wrong over there is the continued Shia/Sunni violence that 1) has been going on for centuries and 2) either we did not properly anticapate or we did and we knew it to be one of our best allies.

My only question on all this is whether it was a good stategy to undermine the one force that was keeping Iran in check.

At 3:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't advocate appeasement, but disengagement. Oil is the only thing keeping us in the Middle East. It would be in our national interest to develop an energy policy that promoted our leaving the region. It could be more nuclear power leading to electric or hydrogen propelled cars, or reliance on coal liquefaction, or oil shale production along with higher CAFE standards to minimize our use of liquid fuels, if we're to continue using the internal combustion engine.

Pakistan has the bomb and is perilously close to takeover by the Taliban. Those people are lunatics, and would not hesitate to start a nuclear war. The policy of mutually assured destruction would not work with them as it did with the Soviets.

Is it really in our national interest to continue relying on foreign oil, or is it primarily in the interest of the oil and automobile industries? I ask that question as one who spent most of his career in the oil refining industry.


Post a Comment

<< Home