One thing that the debates have done for me is clarify the central issue in the presidential candidates’ minds: nuclear proliferation, the fear that someone can & will set one off in Manhattan. I’ll buy that as one the BIG issues of the 21st century.
The substantive charges each levels at the other: Bush/Cheney say this requires a committed, steadfast, long-term approach that doesn’t wave in the political breeze. Kerry/Edwards say it requires a broad coalition and that Iraq and the process of going into Iraq was flawed, or worse, deceitful, causing us to take our eye off more important balls.
These are both well-founded criticisms and positions. Kerry/Edwards do seem to be reacting to the landscape and as political opportunists rather than acting from a clear vision; Bush/Cheney have ignored the rest of the world and America has squandered the 9/11 opportunity to create broad and deep consensus. I just don’t see going in Iraq virtually alone as the next logical step to reduce the risk of global terrorism. Nor do I think it’s an Al Queda-only problem. Even Tom Barnett, in The Pentagon’s New Map that RLTW recommended a while back, questioned the Bush process in Iraq because it failed to signal clear, moral & globally persuasive intentions.
The circumstances are not easy to resolve. On the one hand, the strategy of taking the war to them makes sense, except the tools, objectives and strategies of this new kind of struggle need to be rethought & clarified; and on the other, we have to generate global respect and trust for us to reduce the motivation to want to attack. We must build the perception of moral behavior to do this, and we have failed. Carrot and stick, carrot and stick. It’s the only way to influence behavior.
With either candidate there are risks. Bush creates global fear and hatred of US as the most dangerous country in the world, creating more terrorists than he kills; Kerry may not have the vision and will to marshal an enduring, effective approach if it doesn’t play to political winds.
Because I believe the most effective way to address this is as a global issue with global partners, I cannot vote for Bush.
-- Modified on 10/6/2004 9:53:35 AM
that doesn't have to include cheap shots, slams and name calling to get the point acrossed. Thank you. I happen to think that Iraq is one of those countries that had its hands in as many aspects of terrorism as it possibly could. I also enjoy the thought of fighting the terrorists IN IRAQ, where our military can do the job that US citizens cannot do here at home.
So, do you think we are creating more terriorists than we are killing and/or generally arousing greater ferment against the US or diminishing it? I travel to India & Asia on business and the press, which leads opinion (& follows it), of these allies or neutral countries generally conveys a sense that America veered off-course and is to be seen warily.
So the question I really ask to those of you who hold with the Bush administration is two-fold: 1) given we are the only nation who can project military power globally, a position I hope we retain, what is the course of action we should take to dissuade others to build competing militaries out of fear of us? and 2) is terriorism an American problem or a global one?
These are complex questions, because to defeat decentralized, tiny, but dramatically potent factions, there has to be a near-unanimous consensus that they are the bad guys without any justification. How do we create this? We cannot micro-manage the global environment militarily and have any money left to sustain our competitive advantage with hot shots like India and China.
But one does have to keep in mind THAT OTHER COUNTRIES ARE ENTITLED TO DISAGREE WITH US, and FEEL THREATENED BY US. And to take steps to hurt us if we try to interfere with them. Iran has not invaded its neighbours in a war since the Ghaznavids! On the other hand, we have invaded its neighbours at least 5 times in the last 100 years(Russia 1918, Iran 1942, Afhansitan 2002, and Iraq 1991 & 2003), so they are entitled to feel threatened. I happen to think all but the Russia 1918, and the Iraq 2003 attacks justified, but to an Iranian the world may honestly look different!
Perhaps we need to rethink our desire to police the world, and deal with other nations on an equal footing. Hey- remember that Russia behaved more like Russia most of the time than it did a "Soviet State".
Not a diss or rebuttal- just an add on...
Those dirty rotten terrorists need to get their bare butts paddled! Whack whack whack whack whack. Till they're beet red.
And those dirty rotten embezzling lap-dog French flunkies need to get their bare butts paddled too. Whack whack whack whack whack. Paddle their butts till they're beet read. Those embezzling cowards.
And then throw them in that Paris river (Seine) cause they got bo real bad.
the UN is full of dirty rotten scum-eating parasites too. They're just stuffing their swiss bank accxounts too.
And whomp on those dumb ass UN flunkies that have diplomatic immunity. And Cheney won that debate against Edwards.
The book, The Pentagon's New Map, has influenced my thinking a lot. The fact is America is the only country with the ability to project a global military presence. If we really can build consensus, we can use that power positively. But it's a curious thing, as absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.
I really think much of the world thinks of us as the most dangerous country on the planet. Egocentrism masked as patriotism is dangerous in the 21st century.
The question is, can - and if so, how - we assume this position and act with moral clarity? Unilateral action may feel like a warm gun ("happiness is a warm gun," someone once sang), but ....
-- Modified on 10/6/2004 7:48:53 PM
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
We thank you for your purchase!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!
