It would be nice of him to explain “The Bush Doctrine.” Yes, yes, I know: “The Bush Doctrine” means that the U.S. reserves the right to take pre-emptive action against emerging threats. Duly noted. The problem is that this is also a trait of the “realist” doctrine, any one of the “neoconservative” doctrines currently circulating, the Charles “I saw a woman in a Hijab at my polling place” Johnson doctrine, the “Team America” doctrine, and — at least in words — the “Kerry” doctrine. It’s not exactly a defining distinction. Or, to be blunter: It don’t quite separate the smart from the stupid.
While we’re on the subject of things that need to be done but haven’t, now would be a wonderful time to ramp up troop levels in Iraq, take Fallujah, and start spending the cash that needs to be spent. Because, you know, it’s nice to win the wars that we start. We might even think about trying this newfangled “learning from experience” notion and increase troop levels generally — after all, the fact that Kerry had a host of bad foreign policy ideas does not mean that he had no good foreign policy ideas.
Oh, yeah, and now would be the opportune time to, say, confront Iran — i.e., before they have nuclear weapons. And maybe get moving on those negotiations with North Korea, since the current plan, whatever its theoretical merits, is not exactly paying practical dividends.
To work, friends. There’s a lot of work to be done.
UPDATE: In comments, Thorley Winston finds fault with, well, my finding fault:
Tell you what Von, take a day or so to let us enjoy our hard-fought victory and you and the other Kerry supporters can resume your petty bitchng and moaning then, ‘mkay?
Look, enjoy the day. Heck, enjoy the week. The items that I list, however, were delayed by the election and cannot wait. So, in your enjoyment, do them. Indeed, although I realize that the following is more frequently said than believed, it is true: We are at war.
Let’s start acting like it.
While you’re handing out ponies, can we do something to ameliorate the effect of the anti-gay-civil-union legislation just passed?
Hey, there’s something you can do. Move to Washington State! With all do respect to the fine homophobes in yesterday’s anti-gay-marriage states, they don’t deserve the goodwill and productivity of any of their gay citizens.
Or ‘due’. I blame the ouzo.
Anyone for catching OBL?
Well, I’m straight, and my gay relatives are productive residents of gay-friendly states, and tearing more families apart doesn’t seem like a good solution. [/threadjack]
Sorry, Von. Lying is addictive, like crack. They just warned that the debt ceiling needs to be raised. They are scheduling a ramp up in Iraq in January, but it’s disguised by the troop rotation …
Anyone for catching OBL?
I actually fall into the OBL is inconsequential school of thought. Sure, it’s important to capture — or, preferrably, kill — him. But he is not the “indispensible man” for our terrorist enemies.
Iran says no.
The concession isn’t even an hour old and already we’re hearing the bitching and moaning from Kerry supporters.
Sour grapes.
Tell you what Von, take a day or so to let us enjoy our hard-fought victory and you and the other Kerry supporters can resume your petty bitchng and moaning then, ‘mkay?
Congratulations to the Repub. party and best of luck on governing in a difficult climate.
So now that you cleaned us democrats’ clock fair and square, whatcha gonna do?
Iran: if there’s one upside, for me, to Kerry’s defeat is that he doesn’t have to develop a response to Iran. Bush now does. Let Iran go nuclear? ugh. Military strike? might not work, and might lead to a nuke going off in DC a few years later. Diplomacy? doesn’t seem to be working.
Iraq: also ugh. I don’t see much maneuvering room except a slow grinding stay-the-course occupation. I think Iraq is won or lost in low-level administration, persuading the new soldiers coming thru training that civil war is a bad idea. I understand the desire to storm Falluja, but once we take it, can we keep it? and Ramadi? and Samarra? and Sadr City? if we’re running around stamping out brush fires, we’re not investing in developing a solid middle-class urban society that prefers the status quo to civil war.
Domestic policy: $. The republican party is taking a hell of a chance on the willingness of the Chinese and Japanese central banks to keep buying T bills. Any new domestic program, be it health care or SS privatization, will be driven by the govt’s ability to borrow money, especially since military spending is going to go up as the equipment being overused starts collapsing.
I voted for Kerry because I thought he’d have better answers for these tough questions. A majority of Americans disagreed and Bush remains president. So, fellow posters, what course should we set? Whither goes the great ship of state, the U.S.S. USofA?
Francis
“Petty bitching & moaning.” I guess that’s what Thorley considers actual, you know, policy questions. Just like the Bush administration!
I love Thorley Winston. I want to marry him.
Sorry, I mean, I’m not sorry, I’m not a politically correct liberal.
O.K. I changed my mind. Now I want a divorce.
And they didn’t even thank Von for his Bush vote in 2000.
OBL “not the indispensable man”. Probably true, but every endorsement should be heard, or at least, spun. 🙂
Well, this is as good a day I’ll ever have to get my one warning, and TW has already run roughshod over the posting rules in two different ways, so…
Thorley, from the bottom of my heart, bite me.
Shove it, Thorley.
There will be no ganging up on Thorley. The point he raises is legitimate, and will be reflected in an update.
If Thorley is referring to this blog, I don’t think his point is legitimate. How are our criticisms of Bush substantially different today than they were yesterday?
Also, Thorley, my fellow American, I resent that you consider my bitching and moaning “petty.”
Ineffective, yes. Disorganized, perhaps. But I’ve only moaned until now. Bitching is merely looming. If I ever get it so together that I can do both simultaneously, I might even throw in stopping paying taxes completely until government pleases me. I might even get a lot of people to join me and then where would we be?
Fortunately, I’m relatively lazy and aspire to mere “smugness”. I’d even settle for “petty” smugness. Which I understand falls short of the “monumental smugness” displayed on other sites.
But you’re right. First I need to win.
Oh, it is not. He calls your entirely legitimate policy questions ‘petty bitching and moaning’ (twice. No points for prose) and you think he’s earned even a comment, much less an update? Why are you bending over backward for someone who clearly has no concern for you whatsoever?
Something’s been bothering me about the troop level argument since, well, I first heard it. Since today is probably the window with the least partianship until just after the 2008 election is settled, I’ll try broaching it now.
Obviously, more boots on the ground means more targets for terrorists/Baathist insurgents or whatever you want to call them. But it also means a greater show of force which could have the effect of pacifying Iraq more effectively. I suppose both are true to some extent.
But to me, the apparent flaw in that reasoning is that ultimately, troops are there to at least threaten, and sometimes to actually apply lethal violence. I doubt that our current troops have maxed out the level of force they could apply. So if the problem with our troop level is that we’re not providing enough of a deterrence, doesn’t that mean that we could be more effective in detering disorder by projecting more force with our existing troops?
To me, it sounds like the troop level argument is a just a way to lead to quagmire, it creates a bigger commitment of resources on our part without a corresponding increase in our effectiveness. We’ve got more than enough forces to deal with 8 – 10k insurgents in Fallujah. Another, say, 100K pairs of boots on the ground there would be pointless if the will to use them is absent.
But then I’ve never run an occupation before. Comments anyone?
Can I gang up on von? The tone of the post was pretty snarky, and premature, and maybe a little bitter. I have spent my day kicking my fellow Kerry supporters while they are down. Not really, actually trying to come with plans, tactics, and strategies.
I haven’t a clue as to what the vons, Holsclaws, Sullivans should do in the longer term. As seen in the subtext of Thorley’s comment, they may have lost a little influence. They are not likely to be listened to today.
take a day or so to let us enjoy our hard-fought victory
No.
“Let’s start acting like it”
Agreed! Now, raise my taxes to pay for the necessary parts of the war AND for the unnecessary parts. I won’t even say which is which. That would be petty.
I don’t think ‘bite me’ is a violation, is it?
My question about Iran, and ultimately NK, is what is the world going to do with the UN? It should be about sink or swim time. Handle Iran, or disband for an upstart led by Francis and carpeicthus.
Why are you bending over backward for someone who clearly has no concern for you whatsoever?
Because the majority of Americans who voted apparently endorsed a non-reality-based administration: and in non-reality-land, it doesn’t matter that there are real problems in Iraq that Bush had no apparent plan to deal with before the election, except to bitch and moan that Kerry would be worse than him.
The next four years should be interesting. There are Republicans who have dealt with every single reality-based issue of the past four years by:
1. Blaming President Clinton. Not really an out any more.
2. Blaming the liberal media. Yeah, right.
3. Blaming everything that’s not blamable on Clinton or “the liberal media” on bureaucratic blunders* that the Bush administration can’t possibly be expected to take responsibility for. Those are likely to start coming home to roost.
4. Asserting that whatever the problem was, Kerry would handle it worse. Well, that’s not an issue any more, is it?
I wanted Kerry to win because I wanted someone trustworthy running the country: I wanted an end to the disaster-area administration. I thought that the doom-sayers who said it would be just as well if Kerry lost, (since if he won the Republicans would blame all the blunders of the Bush administration on him, as they came home to roost in the next four years) were being unnecessarily pessimistic and despairing. Well, I was wrong. So, I hope the doom-sayers were right.
*Torture. Mythical stockpiles of WMD. Subcontracted torture. Illegal prison camps. Entirely real stockpiles of dangerous explosives. Mass deaths of innocent civilians. Betraying a covert CIA agent for petty political revenge. All just “bureaucratic blunders” for which the buck has to stop somewhere well short of the top, because – according to Bush and his supporters – criticizing the President, or blaming him for his mistakes, or calling him on his lies, are all unthinkable options.
“petty bitching and moaning.”
Right Thorley. Dissent is unfair and un-American. Nice to know you’re on message.
“I don’t think ‘bite me’ is a violation, is it?”
That probably wasn’t intended this sense.
mike p,
We are going to take Fallujah with about 3,000 troops. Using just conventional arms we could actually just flaten them into submision. But since we value the lives of the civilians who live there we wont’ do that.
Conclude what you will from that about troop levels.
i just don’t have real strong feelings about the UN. Yes, it’s a profoundly corrupt and largely useless institution. but it also serves as a debating forum and, if handled correctly, a means of developing international consensus.
For example, i thought that Bush’s speeches in the fall of ’02 regarding the UN’s ability to impose consequences on those who violate Security Council resolutions were powerful. and as a result he got renewed authority for coercive inspections. (i also think Bush then pissed away the coalition he was building but that is water over the dam and under the bridge.)
It seems to me that as the 800-lb gorilla, the US will get out of the UN what it is willing to put in. Take pharmaceutical financing. The US is financing a huge percentage of the development of new drugs by being a place where the fed govt doesn’t negotiate discounts and doesn’t break patent. Now, the WHO is actually a fairly useful and respected body within the UN. (I may be wrong about all of this, but i’m too flu-ish today to look it up.) If the US wants the rest of the West to pay their fair share of pharma development costs, the UN/WHO could be a good place to start. (Or is it the WTO? i dunno.)
but the point to remember about the security council is that it gives our allies the political cover they need to support US actions that will alienate their constituents. Not all EU politicians are craven cowards, but they do represent countries whose populations are ever more anti-American, especially concerning American military action. What should a French/German/English/Spanish/Italian politician do if he believes that Iran must be stopped? More to the point, how should America conduct its foreign policy in a way which allows this guy to do his job, which includes both representing his anti-american constituents and protecting their safety?
Seems to me that we can use the UN to give this guy the cover he needs to allow his country to provide the support we want. Iran is a big powerful country with a track record of beating the Americans. We are going to need all the help we can get.
Francis
Blue: But since we value the lives of the civilians who live there we wont’ do that.
Claiming to value the lives of civilians when so many have already been slaughtered is a little pointless, isn’t it?
Bombing a holy city flat and claiming to have “liberated” it is unconvincing, that’s all.
Thorley, when the president you just re-elected starts taking his job seriously, I’ll give you time to “enjoy your hard-won victory.” I’m more concerned about victory over an actual enemy – like, y’know, those guys who knocked over those big buildings in that big city a couple years back (I know it’s tough to remember; I’ll give you a couple more months to focus on the important stuff like tax cuts and gay marriage bans).
Seems to me that we can use the UN to give this guy the cover he needs to allow his country to provide the support we want.
Good call.
Iron Lungfish: (I know it’s tough to remember; I’ll give you a couple more months to focus on the important stuff like tax cuts and gay marriage bans).
Presumably Thorley takes his cue from Bush: “I
don’t know. I don’t really think about him very much. I’m not that concerned.”
“Seems to me that we can use the UN to give this guy the cover he needs to allow his country to provide the support we want.”
Interesting interpretation. Seems to me that the UN has historically, especially in the last 20 years, been used in precisely the opposite way–a forum to thwart US action while maintaining deniability.
Bob Mcmanus wrote:
You’re partially correct. I see no reason to that it should apply to Sebastian Holsclaw though as to the best of my knowledge he has generally made honest and constructive criticism while at the same time given no one any reason to question his motivations. I have little patient for those who hold themselves out as (albeit liberal) Republicans while trying to use this status to give themselves credibility or a special status when they go out for Kerry or any other candidate who was objectively worse on the very things that Bush has (rightfully) been criticized for.
We just fought a tough race and won a major victory, it stands to reason that we’re going to be more inclined to listen to those who actively tried to help us in the election (thereby making it possible for us to attempt to do some of things domestically we campaigned on like Social Security reform and judicial nominees) rather than those who opposed us nearly every step of the way. Generally those who are seen as having your best interests are heart rather than working for your defeat are going to have more credibility.
Until then any snarky criticism of “why doesn’t Bush do a better job immediately now that he’s just been reelected” is going to be seen as “more whining about Bush from disaffected Kerry supporters.” Give it a couple of days and try to come up with something actually constructive.
why doesn’t Bush do a better job immediately?
Snarky, Thorley?
Bush has been President now since 21 January 2001. I for one am kind of tired of waiting for him to “do a better job” – and furthermore, I have no faith it’s ever going to happen. Why should it? He has no reason to do better now: he’s just been formally told that his mediocre-at-best, disastrous-at-worst, and frequently corrupt administration is what the majority of those who voted, want. Including, presumably, you.
Generally those who are seen as having your best interests are heart rather than working for your defeat are going to have more credibility.
Oooh, next time I see someone at Tacitus complaining about blacks going 90% for the Democrats, I’m going to whip this one out. Thanks, Thorley!
Thorley,
Being a poor loser is an insult to the democratic process, but being a poor winner is an insult to humanity.
Exactly how much gloating time do you require before the folks who are here expressing their opinions can resume doing so free of your rubbing their noses in the outcome? Really, give us a number. Just for the record. How long will it take for your head to return to a size where others will have the room to share the same blog with you?
And for the record, you didn’t fight any harder the side that lost. You had incumbency on your side and it was still a nailbiter, not exactly “one for the history books” in those terms.
In other words, hard as it might be, do try and get over yourself.
Thorley, three points:
1. You’re kidding yourself if you think I have the power to sway anyone’s vote merely by using an adjective.
2. I have made my views on Bush well known at every stage of the game. My problem is (mostly) not with his policies; it’s with his follow through. I describe myself (varyingly) as a liberal Republican or conservative Democrat because a pro-life, pro-trade, pro-Iraq war, pro-gay rights, strict-constructionist, foreign policy realist does not necessarily feel welcome in either party, at least at the present time.
3. This point is legitimate: Until then any snarky criticism of “why doesn’t Bush do a better job immediately now that he’s just been reelected” is going to be seen as “more whining about Bush from disaffected Kerry supporters.” Give it a couple of days and try to come up with something actually constructive.
Well, Thorley, you’re right about Sebastian, though I hope for his sake in your eyes he never changes his mind about anything.
Von changed his mind and he said so, which is his business. He never “held himself out to be (a) Republican”, nor does he claim special status.
If this was all “objective”, we’d all vote 100% for one candidate and elect Ferdinand Marcos. Gosh, maybe we just did.
Surely you don’t believe you are in 100% contact with objective truth, do you?
I wouldn’t even claim that, and I’m right 110% of the time. But only 50% of the time.
Wait, I see over at Tacitus and Redstate that Mr. T. believes he is right about everything and the Democratic Party is wrong about everything.
You’re both wrong. And “everything” has nothing to do with it. You’re ideologues. Say thank you. I’m being nice.
I’m sorry, Von, I realize me defending you gives you one of those “if this is my friend, then who needs enemies” headaches.
Why is it that, generally speaking, many Bush supporters seem to be so enraged whenever they win something? Is it just post-victory letdown or something?
I apologize in advance to Bush supporters who are generally happy and good-natured with their victories. I just notice that at various points in this presidency that would be regarded as high points by supporters, a lot of rage is exhibited. I can’t wrap my head around it.
Von wrote:
Who said you did, moreover how is that relevant?
Naturally since you profess to hold those views, you chose the candidate who was the opposite of each of those or at least (with the possible exception of so-called “gay rights”) objectively worse than Bush. My criticism has never been about those who were upset with Bush and (wrongfully) decided to sit out the election to punish him but rather those who first profess to hold those views and then proceeded to endorse a candidate who was by any honest accounting objectively worse.
Exactly I couldn’t have said it better myself. 😉
FTR: what sparked my response to your post was not merely that after having previously come out for the other side, you proceeded to go after Bush when his victory was barely an hour old. There were a lot of ways you could have done a “now that you’ve won reelection Mr. President, here’s what I think you should do about _____” post. You chose one of the least constructive and snarkier methods. Even Edward seem to have the good sense (at least initially) to realize that Kerry supporters such as yourself ought to tone it down a bit for a while and try to approach things with a more constructive attitude.
Why is it that, generally speaking, many Bush supporters seem to be so enraged whenever they win something?
spot on dpu…that is curious.
I recalled the nights Clinton won the White House, no one could have upset me…I was joyous beyond petty nitpicking.
Could it be they’re secretly disappointed?
Jes,
“Claiming to value the lives of civilians when so many have already been slaughtered is a little pointless, isn’t it?”
No, I don’t think its pointless.
Sebastian: the world is full of ankle-biters (those who would interfere with the US’s exercise of its power simply for the pleasure of doing so, like the French) and those who hold substantive disagreements with US foreign policy (like the French). I’d be astonished if either group didn’t use the UN to try to restrain the US. If the UN didn’t exist, they’d use alternative means to achieve their goals.
A muscular foreign policy, especially revolving around the exercise of military power, is going to require (a) better diplomacy; (b) dealing with more situations like Turkey (in its refusal to allow the 4th ID to attack Iraq from the north) or (c) a combination.
I don’t recall all the twists involving NATO’s intervention in Bosnia. IIRC, the US didn’t use the UN because of Russia’s historic ties to Serbia. But we found another way to give diplomats WHO WANTED TO HELP the cover they needed.
I suspect (yes, without a shred of evidence) that there are lots of european diplomats who very much want to help on Iran. But (A) they may disagree with us on how to deal with the problem (although I’ll note a certain lack of consensus hee in the US); and (B) they may want to keep their jobs, and therefore need a way to support the US in a manner palatable to their own electorate. Hence the existence of international institutions, and the need for effective and creative diplomacy.
I guess where we part paths is that I see the UN and other international institutions as process, not substance (thinking like a lawyer). The UN creates the framework — the legal procedure — in which various actors seek to achieve their substantive goals. Like US civil procedure, the UN process is subject to abuse, and even more so due to a lack of an overseeing judiciary. But the corrupt, the ankle-biters and those who disagree will always seek to work what we perceive as mischief. The UN simply provides a nice address in NY to do it.
I’d be interested to hear from you what actions the US would have taken since WWII which were both forestalled by the UN, and would not have been forestalled in the absence of the UN (or whatever international institutions you believe the US should be party to). More simply, how effective has the UN been historically in interfering in US foreign policy?
Trevino’s post should be another thread. My rule is that any post which starts out: “All [my political opponents] believe . . .” isn’t worth reading any farther. The idea of a monolithic Left is just slightly more ridiculous than the idea of a monolithic Right.
Francis
Even Edward seem to have the good sense (at least initially) to realize that Kerry supporters such as yourself ought to tone it down a bit for a while and try to approach things with a more constructive attitude.
Good Lord…what would it take for you to ever entertain the idea that perhaps, just maybe, you, yourself, the Might Mr. Thorley, had stepped over the line?
Tone it down a bit for a while? Doctor, heal thyself!
One more thing. We’re 45 comments into this thread and there has been barely any discussion of the original post. C’mon, back to basics here! Bush won, now what?
Francis
No, I don’t think its pointless.
What’s the point? Pretending the violent siege and storming of a city won’t cause many, many civilian deaths transcends foolishness.
And what will it accomplish? Probably very little. It’s not as if the insurgents there are going to stick around and do a reenactment of Little Round Top. They’ll disperse to other towns and cities and it’ll be business as usual. Meanwhile the resultant carnage at Falluja will be a great recruiting tool for the insurgents.
It’s almost as if the lessons of VietNam have been forgotten.
You guys are a hoot. Von basically proclaims that now that Bush has won the election, the best way for him to proceed is to agree to these new found contrarian liberal actions, that weren’t liberal actions until they were found not to be the administrations actions and start healing the divisiveness by concurring with his opinions about how to fix things we’re not sure are broken. Got that. So when Thorley takes umbrage, the piranha faction circles the carcass and picks it to the bone. God I love this blog.
And Sebastian, somewhere along the line I owe you my particular take on why I’m a homophobe, but don’t consider myself racist or bigoted. Doing some soul searching.
Blogbudsman, you got me befuddled. What about expanding the military, winning wars, and negotiating from strength is “liberal”?* Have you misunderstood me, sir? (Or have I misunderstood the point of your post?)
I do appreciate that Thorley was in danger of being unfairly shouted down without a hearing; the answer to that, however, is more conservative commentators. Which we’re trying to work on. (Well, I am.)
*Classically liberal, perhaps.
Von, no befuddlement intended, well not much. Actually it was Hillary, I think during her interview with Fox, that when she was expected to come on anti war, and outFoxed everyone by actually spawning the ‘more troops’, Bush is failing because he’s not doing enough gambit. Brilliant. The Clintons and their inner circle are genius political strategists. Both Gore and Kerry could well have conducted successful campaigns if they would have fully embraced the Clintons. I don’t mean to speak for Thorley, but what seemed to get his goat is when you benchmark the election as a time when Bush somehow follow Kerry’s ‘advice’ and ‘correct’ the Iraq military strategy. It cracked me up. I probably assumed too much and interpreted something that wasn’t there. I’m not as smooth with this blanket condemnation as Jes is.
Hey, no harm. It’s just that I’ve been arguing for more troops and more money since, well, pretty much the invasion. So I wasn’t sure if you’d pegged me, incorrectly, as a Jonny-come-politically saavy. (Most of the old Tacitus boards hare disappeared into the ether, so you’ll have to take my word for it.)
The Clintons and their inner circle are genius political strategists.
Yup. The Clinton’s true gift, however, is that their political acumen so often coincides with the right thing to do. (Excepting, of course, Hillary-care.)
As you say, there’s no such thing as a Bush doctrine when it comes to pre-emptive strike, just different criteria for striking out.
The Bush administration’s are as loose as a sex-crazed hippie slut on an aphrodisiac overdose*.
But I think it’s wrong to see it as a central element of the Bush doctrine. It is just a mean to an end, the end beeing hegemony. The jingoistic kind that made victorian John Bulls thump their chests and sing “Rule Britannia”, or what Kaiser Wilhelm had in mind when he whined about “a Place in the Sun”.
Or more likely, as a lot of people in the administration have read too many Victor Hanson books for their own good, the New Rome**
*not the best metaphore, as I see absolutely nothing wrong with that, while the Bush’s doctrine’s looseness is morally dubious.
**(though it’s more likely that operation “Humongous Virility” will take place before “Righteous Retribution”, as you correctly point out the need to act before Iran aquires dissuasion)
My criticism has never been about those who were upset with Bush and (wrongfully) decided to sit out the election to punish him but rather those who first profess to hold those views and then proceeded to endorse a candidate who was by any honest accounting objectively worse.
“Honest”?
Relating back unto the primary post of this thread:
Indeed, although I realize that the following is more frequently said than believed, it is true: We are at war. Let’s start acting like it.
Regardless of what semantics you use to describe the situation, can we please stop f***ing talking about gay marriage? I know it decided the election, yadda yadda yadda, but — pace Edward and all those millions of others whose lives are cheapened or enriched by this — this isn’t the really important issue facing America right now. There’s a time and place to fight the last battle and a time and place to fight the battle after next, and neither of those is now.