Verdicts on Bush's Wartime Leadership
George Bush is running his campaign on his record as a war president.
I blogged recently about my realization that Bush was incapable of winning the war. It seems I am not alone. The following people criticize his tactics. My concern is more than just the tactics: The tactics are failing and it doesn't appear that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have the intellectual capacity to change course.
Tacitus, a Republican Hawk blogger (found via Big Hominid) has a damning indictment of Bush's policies:
To this roll call of shame -- to this litany of missed chances and willful defeats -- we must this week add our repulse at Fallujah.
There is nothing else to call it. We are beaten, and we are beaten because our President has ordered us beaten. As you read this, United States Marines, undefeated in actual combat, are quitting the field of battle in the face of an enemy that celebrates, gloats, and kills them still. As you read this, a Ba'athist general in a Ba'athist uniform reigns over a city rife with Ba'athist killers in the Sunni heartland. As you read this, rebellious Fallujah is "policed" by men from rebellious Fallujah. As you read this, the murderers and mutilators of Fallujah go definitively unfound and unpunished. As you read this, General Abizaid sheepishly acknowledges that yes, they'll still find all the jihadis in Fallujah -- they just might not find them in Fallujah.
Well. Right you are, General. Right you are.
One wonders in stupefaction at the magnitude of this folly. Trite phrases spring to mind: in particular, "It is worse than a crime -- it is a mistake." In this case, the mistake is the crime, and it is terrible indeed. It is hardly too much to call it dereliction of duty: with the United States in a global war of extermination not of its choosing against a jihadist foe, the one man ultimately responsible for protecting our nation from that foe ordered our forces to stand down when the enemy was trapped and doomed. Now they live. Now they go free. Now they tell their tales, share their lessons, regroup and re-arm. And why? Because George W. Bush feared Arab public opinion? Because George W. Bush, incredibly, caved to pressure from the United Nations? Because George W. Bush didn't have the backbone to finish the job?
Yes, yes, and yes.
Fool.
Read the rest here.
In Sunday's Post, Robert Kagan, a respected voice in the foreign affairs community, launches a blistering attack on Bush's policy:
"All but the most blindly devoted Bush supporters can see that Bush administration officials have no clue about what to do in Iraq tomorrow, much less a month from now. Consider Fallujah: One week they're setting deadlines and threatening offensives; the next week they're pulling back. The latest plan, naming one of Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard generals to lead the pacification of the city, is the kind of bizarre idea that only desperate people can conjure. The Bush administration is evidently in a panic, and this panic is being conveyed to the American people."
Read the rest here.
Niall Ferguson, recent recipient of a love blog from the Maximum Leader, also has misgivings about Bush's ability to learn from the past:
"There are no perfect correlations in history. But there is a suggestive relationship between the duration of American military presence and the success with which occupied countries have achieved economic growth and the transition to enduring democratic institutions. For this reason, there have been grounds for uneasiness about the Bush administration's proposed timetable for Iraq's transformation."
Ferguson regretfully concludes that Bush has failed to learn the lessons of history. Read the rest here.
Who woulda thought that Kerry would become the candidate for the hawks?
I blogged recently about my realization that Bush was incapable of winning the war. It seems I am not alone. The following people criticize his tactics. My concern is more than just the tactics: The tactics are failing and it doesn't appear that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have the intellectual capacity to change course.
Tacitus, a Republican Hawk blogger (found via Big Hominid) has a damning indictment of Bush's policies:
To this roll call of shame -- to this litany of missed chances and willful defeats -- we must this week add our repulse at Fallujah.
There is nothing else to call it. We are beaten, and we are beaten because our President has ordered us beaten. As you read this, United States Marines, undefeated in actual combat, are quitting the field of battle in the face of an enemy that celebrates, gloats, and kills them still. As you read this, a Ba'athist general in a Ba'athist uniform reigns over a city rife with Ba'athist killers in the Sunni heartland. As you read this, rebellious Fallujah is "policed" by men from rebellious Fallujah. As you read this, the murderers and mutilators of Fallujah go definitively unfound and unpunished. As you read this, General Abizaid sheepishly acknowledges that yes, they'll still find all the jihadis in Fallujah -- they just might not find them in Fallujah.
Well. Right you are, General. Right you are.
One wonders in stupefaction at the magnitude of this folly. Trite phrases spring to mind: in particular, "It is worse than a crime -- it is a mistake." In this case, the mistake is the crime, and it is terrible indeed. It is hardly too much to call it dereliction of duty: with the United States in a global war of extermination not of its choosing against a jihadist foe, the one man ultimately responsible for protecting our nation from that foe ordered our forces to stand down when the enemy was trapped and doomed. Now they live. Now they go free. Now they tell their tales, share their lessons, regroup and re-arm. And why? Because George W. Bush feared Arab public opinion? Because George W. Bush, incredibly, caved to pressure from the United Nations? Because George W. Bush didn't have the backbone to finish the job?
Yes, yes, and yes.
Fool.
Read the rest here.
In Sunday's Post, Robert Kagan, a respected voice in the foreign affairs community, launches a blistering attack on Bush's policy:
"All but the most blindly devoted Bush supporters can see that Bush administration officials have no clue about what to do in Iraq tomorrow, much less a month from now. Consider Fallujah: One week they're setting deadlines and threatening offensives; the next week they're pulling back. The latest plan, naming one of Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard generals to lead the pacification of the city, is the kind of bizarre idea that only desperate people can conjure. The Bush administration is evidently in a panic, and this panic is being conveyed to the American people."
Read the rest here.
Niall Ferguson, recent recipient of a love blog from the Maximum Leader, also has misgivings about Bush's ability to learn from the past:
"There are no perfect correlations in history. But there is a suggestive relationship between the duration of American military presence and the success with which occupied countries have achieved economic growth and the transition to enduring democratic institutions. For this reason, there have been grounds for uneasiness about the Bush administration's proposed timetable for Iraq's transformation."
Ferguson regretfully concludes that Bush has failed to learn the lessons of history. Read the rest here.
Who woulda thought that Kerry would become the candidate for the hawks?
posted by Anonymous at 5/03/2004 06:33:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home