The Goal--That's What It Boils Down To
Oct. 21st, 2004 04:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenite0The New York Times explains how Bush got my vote:
In Bush's Vision, a Mission to Spread Power of Liberty
By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: October 21, 2004
ASHINGTON, Oct. 20 - In the last, frenetic two weeks of the campaign, there comes a moment at every rally, every town hall meeting, when President Bush starts talking about what he calls "the transformational power of liberty.''
It usually happens toward the end of his speech, after Mr. Bush accuses Senator John Kerry of seeking to beat a hasty retreat from Iraq and of surrendering American sovereignty by creating a "global test'' for the use of military power. It almost always starts with Mr. Bush's description of his warm relationship with Junichiro Koizumi, the Japanese prime minister, and his sense of wonder that he sits down "at the table with the head of a former enemy'' whom his father fought in the Second World War.
Yet it moves quickly to a vision democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, and then to "free governments in the broader Middle East that will fight the terrorists, instead of harboring them.'' It is Mr. Bush's way of infusing the storyline of his presidency with a sense of mission, one as great as the liberation of Asia and Europe a half-century ago, one with the promise of turning the region into what Japan has become: wealthy, peaceful and its own distinctive form of democracy.
It is deliberately far more Reagan than Bush 41, a sparkling symbol of "the vision thing'' that Mr. Bush's father lacked, with disastrous electoral results, a dozen years ago. And while the president's riff rarely shows up on the evening news, it is the uplifting moment in his daily message. It is artfully crafted to get his audiences to look beyond the daily headlines of beheadings and suicide bombers, of an insurgency that has defied American military might, and to focus Americans' attention on the fact that Afghans have just gone to the polls and that Iraqis are trying to do the same.
"Freedom is on the march,'' Mr. Bush declared in St. Petersburg, Fla., on Tuesday morning, as he began to describe an American mission to spread democracy and liberty that just a few years ago was the vision of just a few neo-conservatives, led by Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary. That argument gathered enthusiasts in the administration as they pressed arguments for ousting Saddam Hussein. "Freedom is taking hold in a part of the world that no one ever dreamed would be free,'' Mr. Bush said, "and that makes America more secure.''
Mr. Kerry and many of the president's other critics argue that his embrace of American-led democratization - replete with a warm reference to Harry S. Truman, the president who initiated the reconstruction of Europe and Japan - amounts to little more than an ex post facto justification of the war. They note that Mr. Bush gave only one major speech about democratizing the Middle East before invading Iraq, though he spoke almost daily of the threat of unconventional weapons. ("We needed a few more of the democratization speeches, and less of the other,'' one of his most senior advisers conceded late last year.) Now, it is part of his daily message.
[Actually it was in there from the beginning -![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
selenite]
Critics argue that Mr. Bush's speech glosses over all the mistakes of the last 18 months that have made it more difficult for reformers in the region to sow the seeds of change. And it is certainly jarring to anyone who heard Mr. Bush argue during the 2000 campaign that it was time to get the American military out of the nation-building business, only to run for re-election in 2004 as a passionate proselytizer for using American power to remake one of the most undemocratic corners of the world.
Yet Mr. Bush's vision seems to strike a chord with his crowds. And when Mr. Kerry raises the same subject - as he did today in Iowa, in a broad critique of Mr. Bush's national security policy - it is usually to reject the president's approach. "I will support the forces of progress in nondemocratic countries,'' Mr. Kerry said, "not with reckless campaigns to impose democracy by force from outside, but working with modernizers from the inside to build the institutions of democracy.''
On the rare moments when he has been asked, Mr. Bush has never answered the question of how he would react if Iraq or Afghanistan or other nations in the Middle East held free elections, and freely chose fundamentalist Islamic governments.
But his communications director, Dan Bartlett, said the other day that "the president understands that part of democracy is that you can't dictate what voters are going to do.''
"But look at each step so far'' in Afghanistan and Iraq, Mr. Bartlett said, "and people have demonstrated so far that they are not inclined to go that route.''
Mr. Bartlett insisted that the speech did not spring from the mind of Mr. Wolfowitz or the pen of any speechwriter. "It's Bush,'' he said.
Mr. Bush talks about "the transformational power of liberty'' in the same tones he sometimes talks about the power of religion to transform the soul. He often links the two, repeating a line that "freedom is not America's gift to the world, freedom is the almighty God's gift to each man and woman in this world.''
And sometimes he truly warms to the subject, as he did on Monday in Marlton, N.J.
"After decades of tyranny in the broader Middle East, progress toward freedom will not come easily,'' Mr. Bush said. "Yet, that progress is coming faster than many would have said possible. Across a troubled region, we are seeing a movement toward elections, greater rights for women, and open discussion of peaceful reform. The election in Afghanistan less than two weeks ago was a landmark event in the history of liberty. That election was a tremendous defeat for the terrorists.''
And then, for good measure, he turned the knife a bit as he talked about Mr. Kerry's alternative vision.
"My opponent has complained that we are trying to 'impose' democracy on people in that region,'' he said, as the crowd booed. "Is that what he sees in Afghanistan, unwilling people have democracy forced upon them?''
"No one forced them to register by the millions,'' he added a moment later, "or stand in long lines at polling places. On the day of that historic election, an Afghan widow brought all four of her daughters to vote alongside her. She said this, she said, 'When you see women here lined up to vote, this is something profound. I never dreamed this day would come.' But that woman's dream finally arrived, as it will one day across the greater Middle East.''
For Mr. Bush, perhaps fortuitously, it came just weeks before Americans go to the polls in what is increasingly looking like a referendum on the president's approach to the world. It may be the first chance since 1948 to determine if what Harry Truman did for Japan translates into a very different age, a very different region of the world, and re-elects a very different president.
In Bush's Vision, a Mission to Spread Power of Liberty
By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: October 21, 2004
ASHINGTON, Oct. 20 - In the last, frenetic two weeks of the campaign, there comes a moment at every rally, every town hall meeting, when President Bush starts talking about what he calls "the transformational power of liberty.''
It usually happens toward the end of his speech, after Mr. Bush accuses Senator John Kerry of seeking to beat a hasty retreat from Iraq and of surrendering American sovereignty by creating a "global test'' for the use of military power. It almost always starts with Mr. Bush's description of his warm relationship with Junichiro Koizumi, the Japanese prime minister, and his sense of wonder that he sits down "at the table with the head of a former enemy'' whom his father fought in the Second World War.
Yet it moves quickly to a vision democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, and then to "free governments in the broader Middle East that will fight the terrorists, instead of harboring them.'' It is Mr. Bush's way of infusing the storyline of his presidency with a sense of mission, one as great as the liberation of Asia and Europe a half-century ago, one with the promise of turning the region into what Japan has become: wealthy, peaceful and its own distinctive form of democracy.
It is deliberately far more Reagan than Bush 41, a sparkling symbol of "the vision thing'' that Mr. Bush's father lacked, with disastrous electoral results, a dozen years ago. And while the president's riff rarely shows up on the evening news, it is the uplifting moment in his daily message. It is artfully crafted to get his audiences to look beyond the daily headlines of beheadings and suicide bombers, of an insurgency that has defied American military might, and to focus Americans' attention on the fact that Afghans have just gone to the polls and that Iraqis are trying to do the same.
"Freedom is on the march,'' Mr. Bush declared in St. Petersburg, Fla., on Tuesday morning, as he began to describe an American mission to spread democracy and liberty that just a few years ago was the vision of just a few neo-conservatives, led by Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary. That argument gathered enthusiasts in the administration as they pressed arguments for ousting Saddam Hussein. "Freedom is taking hold in a part of the world that no one ever dreamed would be free,'' Mr. Bush said, "and that makes America more secure.''
Mr. Kerry and many of the president's other critics argue that his embrace of American-led democratization - replete with a warm reference to Harry S. Truman, the president who initiated the reconstruction of Europe and Japan - amounts to little more than an ex post facto justification of the war. They note that Mr. Bush gave only one major speech about democratizing the Middle East before invading Iraq, though he spoke almost daily of the threat of unconventional weapons. ("We needed a few more of the democratization speeches, and less of the other,'' one of his most senior advisers conceded late last year.) Now, it is part of his daily message.
[Actually it was in there from the beginning -
selenite]Critics argue that Mr. Bush's speech glosses over all the mistakes of the last 18 months that have made it more difficult for reformers in the region to sow the seeds of change. And it is certainly jarring to anyone who heard Mr. Bush argue during the 2000 campaign that it was time to get the American military out of the nation-building business, only to run for re-election in 2004 as a passionate proselytizer for using American power to remake one of the most undemocratic corners of the world.
Yet Mr. Bush's vision seems to strike a chord with his crowds. And when Mr. Kerry raises the same subject - as he did today in Iowa, in a broad critique of Mr. Bush's national security policy - it is usually to reject the president's approach. "I will support the forces of progress in nondemocratic countries,'' Mr. Kerry said, "not with reckless campaigns to impose democracy by force from outside, but working with modernizers from the inside to build the institutions of democracy.''
On the rare moments when he has been asked, Mr. Bush has never answered the question of how he would react if Iraq or Afghanistan or other nations in the Middle East held free elections, and freely chose fundamentalist Islamic governments.
But his communications director, Dan Bartlett, said the other day that "the president understands that part of democracy is that you can't dictate what voters are going to do.''
"But look at each step so far'' in Afghanistan and Iraq, Mr. Bartlett said, "and people have demonstrated so far that they are not inclined to go that route.''
Mr. Bartlett insisted that the speech did not spring from the mind of Mr. Wolfowitz or the pen of any speechwriter. "It's Bush,'' he said.
Mr. Bush talks about "the transformational power of liberty'' in the same tones he sometimes talks about the power of religion to transform the soul. He often links the two, repeating a line that "freedom is not America's gift to the world, freedom is the almighty God's gift to each man and woman in this world.''
And sometimes he truly warms to the subject, as he did on Monday in Marlton, N.J.
"After decades of tyranny in the broader Middle East, progress toward freedom will not come easily,'' Mr. Bush said. "Yet, that progress is coming faster than many would have said possible. Across a troubled region, we are seeing a movement toward elections, greater rights for women, and open discussion of peaceful reform. The election in Afghanistan less than two weeks ago was a landmark event in the history of liberty. That election was a tremendous defeat for the terrorists.''
And then, for good measure, he turned the knife a bit as he talked about Mr. Kerry's alternative vision.
"My opponent has complained that we are trying to 'impose' democracy on people in that region,'' he said, as the crowd booed. "Is that what he sees in Afghanistan, unwilling people have democracy forced upon them?''
"No one forced them to register by the millions,'' he added a moment later, "or stand in long lines at polling places. On the day of that historic election, an Afghan widow brought all four of her daughters to vote alongside her. She said this, she said, 'When you see women here lined up to vote, this is something profound. I never dreamed this day would come.' But that woman's dream finally arrived, as it will one day across the greater Middle East.''
For Mr. Bush, perhaps fortuitously, it came just weeks before Americans go to the polls in what is increasingly looking like a referendum on the president's approach to the world. It may be the first chance since 1948 to determine if what Harry Truman did for Japan translates into a very different age, a very different region of the world, and re-elects a very different president.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
We do have business, but only when it's legitimate business
Date: 2004-10-22 02:27 pm (UTC)I believe we do if they mess with us first, or there is a significant threat that they will mess with us. We had every business changing Japan's government after World War II, for instance. But that was a side-effect of World War II, not the reason...
People often cite Japan and Germany after World War II as examples where an invasion helped establish a democracy. However, in both cases, post-war establishment of a democracy was incidental; the goal of the invasion was total and utter defeat of the enemy. The Soviet Union certainly wasn't interested in establishing democracies. East Germany certainly didn't become a democracy after World War II. WW II was not faught to liberate Germany or Japan from their tyrranical rulers. The invasions of Germany and Japan were in response to Japan attacking the US and Germany attacking all of Europe. WW II ended in the defeat of not just the German government and the Japanese government, but in the defeat of the German and the Japanese people. Tommy Frank's defeat of Saddam Hussein's military and government was brilliant; but we never defeated the Iraqi people, since that wasn't the goal. It's much easier to control a population and mold them to your will when they know that their complete annililation is an option in your arsenal. The U.S. would have, rightfully, nuked both Japan and Germany into oblivion if it had become necessary. War is Hell. We do not have the same option in Iraq, since threatening such an option is antithetical to the stated psuedo-utopian goal of "liberating" the country.
Also, both the German and the Japanese people knew, ultimately, that "they started it," and when you "start it," losing the war and being occupied is something you risk. The Iraqi people were just sitting there minding their own business when bombs started dropping on their houses, punishment I suppose for their sin of not overthrowing Saddam on their own.
"Sorry we just killed half your family and blew your house to smithereens. It's for your own good! Really! Uncle Bush is here to help!"
That's why it drives me nuts when people compare the invasion of Afganistan with Iraq. The first was in direct (and necessary) response to 9/11. It's now clear that Iraq was no significant threat; and now Iran and North Korea are accelerating their nuclear weapons programs based on what they saw happen in Iraq. Libya, fortunately, has abandoned it's WMD efforts, and that was a fortunate side effect. But Iran and North Korea clearly haven't, as they now know that joining the nuclear club is the only way to stave off a potential U.S. invasion. Of course this tempts Israel (reasonably so) into responding to Iran on their own; and hence we may be sliding to Ragnarok faster than Selenite suspects...
OK, I must must must be getting back to work. :)
Re: Just minding their own business
Date: 2004-10-24 04:06 pm (UTC)But perhaps you meant the Tikriti Shi'ites, and Baathist party members (the only modern government deliberately modeled upon the Nazis; yet modern liberals are pissed that the U.S. overthrew it by force. Weird) were just "minding their own business" when they shot at U.S. planes trying to enforce the cease-fire, when they attempted to assassinate the U.S. president, and when they set up terrorist training camps outside Bagdad?
Half of Iraq is a mess, but half is still thrilled to be free of Sadam and the Baathists. And the messy part would've been considerably smaller if the soi disant friends both foreign and domestic weren't tying themselves in knots giving aid and comfort to the terrorists there.
Or to put it another way, if the U.S. were such a horrid presence in Iraq, why do the terrorists there target primarily Iraqi citizens? And why do you want, so badly, to side with these people, against the people of Iraq?
Re: Just minding their own business
Date: 2004-10-24 09:48 pm (UTC)http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0522/p01s02-woiq.html
Note that article was written in May, 2003.
Or read the blow by blow accounts at:
http://www.comw.org/pda/0305iraqcasualtydata.html
Were any of those people offered a "yes/no" vote on a U.S. invasion before they died?
Note I've carefully selected two articles which refer to casualties during the initial campaign (i.e., before the "Mission Accomplished" speech). Getting an accurate account of recent innocent civilian casualties in Iraq is difficult, since of course once Saddam's army fell, everyone was a "civilian," and it's difficult to determine how many of those were insurgents and how many were innocents caught in the crossfire. For instance, I don't trust the reports by www.iraqbodycount.com, since they include some probable insurgents in the "civilian" category, which I would not.
When a missile hits your house, the missile does not care whether you are a Kurd or a Baathist, or whether you or are Shiite or a Sunni, whether you are the oppressed or the oppressor. The laws of physics apply to you just the same.
> And the messy part would've been considerably smaller if the soi disant friends both foreign and domestic
> weren't tying themselves in knots giving aid and comfort to the terrorists there.
The messy part would have been considerably smaller if the Bush administration hadn't taken the wrong path at nearly every turn since the fall of Saddam's government. At a root of every questionable decision is a fundamental arrogance, and an inability to admit fallability. Donald Rumsfeld's hubris has cost the lives of American soldiers.
It's possible to simultaneously realize that (a) the invasion was a bad idea in the first place, and (b) but now that we're in, we must see it through, and (c) the only way to see it through is to recruit allies to the cause, to have enough power in the region to crush the insurgency without weakening the U.S.'s ability to respond to crises in other parts of the world. Right now if Iraq or North Korea were to flair up, we would be _screwed_, since so many of our resources are tied up in Iraq.
I fail to see how that position is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
> Or to put it another way, if the U.S. were such a horrid presence in Iraq, why do the terrorists there
> target primarily Iraqi citizens?
The rebels are recuiting by leaps and bounds, driven by the cause of fighting an "American" occupation.
They are primarily targeting Iraqis instead of U.S. soldiers for two reasons:
1) The Iraqis - even the Iraqi military and police - are easier targets. The U.S. soldiers are much better equiped and almost infinitely better trained.
2) To create fear and uncertainty in those Iraqis who might want to cooperate with the U.S. and/or the U.S.-installed interim government.
> And why do you want, so badly, to side with these people, against the people of Iraq?
I'm confused who you think I'm siding with - who are "these people?" I'm siding with the American people, and the American soldier, and I cannot condone putting them into harms way unless it is necessary to do so. Experiments to try to install a democracy, by force, based largely on wishful thinking do not fall under the category of "necessary" - especially if they set of a chain of events that makes things worse for the U.S. in the long run. In that sense, I fall in line with Pat Buchanan's thinking (although I think he's a bigoted jerk on almost every other issue).
http://www.theamericancause.org/patbloodierthanwar.htm
http://www.theamericancause.org/patwarwerelosing.htm
http://www.theamericancause.org/patamericasnextwar.htm
http://www.theamericancause.org/patthewrongwar.htm
http://www.theamericancause.org/patbushswar.htm
There's lots of countries run by bastards that oppress their people. What country would you like to be next? Syria? Saudi Arabia? Iran (most likely?) And then what country after that? How much are you willing to bleed your own American countryman to support that empire?
Re: Just minding their own business
Date: 2004-10-24 09:48 pm (UTC)Final note: Please don't take the above comments as an endorsement of John Kerry for President. It is merely an anti-endorsement of Bush. I want to find every democrat that voted for him in the primaries and ask them what the hell they were thinking. If Kerry loses this election, it will not because Bush beat him; it will because Kerry dug his own grave. The latest poll has Bush leading Kerry in Georgia by 57%. I'm certainly not in a swing state, which makes the idea of taking Selenite's path of making a protest vote for the Libertarian party rather appealing. In his case, he was leaning towards Bush, but couldn't bring himself to support the blatant bigotry of the Republican platform (I'm guessing that was mostly it, haven't asked him directly yet); in my case, I'm leaning towards Kerry (simply because he's not Bush), but have a hard time bringing myself to support Kerry since he's a prat.
It is annoying that if you live in a "swing state," your vote counts _more_ in a sense than if you live in entrenched Democratic or Republican territory. If we don't reform the electoral college, I forsee a time where people move from California and Texas to Iowa, Michigan, and Florida, so their vote has more significance. When I vote for president, I want to vote as a citizen of the U.S., not as a resident of Georgia.
Re: Just minding their own business
Date: 2004-10-25 06:56 am (UTC)Re: Just minding their own business
Date: 2004-10-25 05:23 pm (UTC)You misunderstand me: When Saddaam was in power, only the innocents died, as the Baathsist's Nazi-wannabe-regime bled thousands a year, positioning Iraq to become the leader of the Gulf states and funding terror. When Sadaam was overthrown, some innocents and many, many, many more guilty died. If the Iraqi people can succeed (against the odds) many, many more innocents will live.
Happily now, the local Iraqis have a chance at running their own country. Granted, probably somewhat poorly, as the Baathists did as much to destroy Iraqi civilization as they did its ecology; but still miles better than under a totalitarian dictator. That this dictator was the sworn enemy of the U.S., provided a haven for international Isamo-fascist terror masters, and was seeking a nuclear weapons program, is the reason U.S. interests and humanitarian concerns dovetailed.
Leading up to the war, doves of your sort balked the United State's effort at every turn. During the war you and your allies provided aid and comfort to the enemy because in every way and at every time you have helped to wage a propaganda war against our soldiers. Thus the terrorists are encouraged to increase their efforts while the U.S. leadership is mired in political battles that handicap their ability to deploy U.S. military strength effectively.
Yes, President Bush's idea that we can solve the problem of international Islamo-fascist terror--a problem bred in the fever swamps of the oppressive, fascist, murderous and hopeless world of Middle Eastern tyrants--by overthrowing these thugs and giving the people who live there a chance to try civilization instead; is idealistic. I agree that it's a longshot. But its still a better option than our other choice: Bury our head in the sand and pretend our oceans are still a barrier. Then wait until the next 9/11 equivalent, at which point the outcry to "kick ass" will make the post-9/11 war-mongering look like a tea-party. Do you honestly believe our congresscritters will stand up to popular opinion and do the principled thing? Do you think Kerry would?
And as for more foreign support, what do you think Great Britain and Australia are, chopped liver? As for the European states not already on board, well, The United Nations are made up of crooked pols on the take, and Old Europe has decided to roll over to militant Islam. Do a bit of googling on such things as the Swedish town of Malmo and the French "zones sensibles" and compare what you find to the "mess" in places like Fallujah and Bagdad. And you really expect these states to take any kind of useful hand in the place?
And yes, the other terror-funding states will be "next" if they do not (like Libya, Pakistan and North Korea did) decide to play ball. That we are also dedicated to freeing their populace and trying to give them a chance at the kind of decent life we Westerners take for granted, rather than just blowing in, killing the opposition, destroying their military-industrial capacity and blowing out, is what makes America great.
And before you decide that "Americans aren't willing to make that kind of sacrifice", try talking to the men and women who have already done so--and those who continue to do so right now. Or were you just hoping that that you and your ilk, rather than they, really represent the U.S.? Because you can bet that I don't.
Re: Just minding their own business
Date: 2004-10-24 11:30 pm (UTC)So, sir, do you want me to go ahead or refrain?
Re: Just minding their own business
Date: 2004-10-25 06:54 am (UTC)Re: We do have business, but only when it's legitimate business
Date: 2004-11-13 05:06 pm (UTC)Most of this we've kicked around already but I want to answer that. The US Air Force does not go bombing civilian houses at random. That's immoral, a violation of the Geneva Conventions, and against our own rules, so we don't do it. If some fedayeen are shooting out the windows, it's a military target, nothing to do with how the original residents acted toward Saddam.
I get very tired of repetitive, substanceless accusations of war crimes against troops who've done a better job of protecting the innocent than any army before in history.