John Reynolds said:
The entire government cut intelligence and defense budgets throughout the '90s. That was before 9/11. What do you think Bush's voting record would've been radically different? If he had any sort of record we could look at and cast judgement on, that is.
What about Bush pre-9/11? Forget about that John?
Last I checked, Bush was proposing raises in Defense Spending and upon appointing Donald Rumsfeld, had his administration embark on a forward looking program to identify threats in the future and dramatically retool the US Military Machine for the low-intensity conflict they envisioned. They then proposed after a concensus was reached that the United States would skip the next generation of weapons which are basically the last of the Cold-War big-budget, massive high-ingtensity conflict weapons and devote 20% of the budget to these ends. He also proposed to increase defense research by $20 billion concurrently with tax incentives for bleeding-edge technology adoption.
The Bush Administration was and is among the more forward looking visionaries as per defense spending and targeting the future of conflict. From their high-tech bias to the cutting of legacy equipment and their shift to rapid-reaction forces under an Intercontinental Shield - they saw the threats (low-intensity/Korean Pen.) and made the right choices. They are diametrically opposed to Kerry in that they have a clue.
John Reynolds said:
Do you not understand how wrong it is to declare war on terrorism and then pick 'n choose which nations to go after? The Bush family has a history of business dealings with the Saudi royal family, the Saudis have clearly been one of the major supporters of terrorist organizatoins, and yet the Bush administration does nothing!!!!!!!!! I would think that sort of BS double-standard would cut through any and all partisan bias and make every American sit up and ask why. Bush went after Saddam, a secular, though dictatorial, leader with little to no evidence of a relationship on his part with terrorist organizations, and then turns around and gives the Saudis a free pass. Why?!
Because, IMHO it's apparent that their reasoning is much deeper than you can comprehend. I'm sorry, but it's the truth. Hell, I don't believe I'll ever see the entire range of influences and options - but it's alot better than your college-liberal-rambling-while-smoking-some-pot mentality.
As I stated before the war when arguing with Natoma (perhaps?!), the administration found themselves in a different world on Sept 12th. Different in that the idle threats of Al-Qaeda materialized in the very real deaths of 2,000 Americans, the problem them emerged of eradicating this organization which had become a virtual state that transcended political boundaries, united under a common ideology and hate of the West. It's the contemporary version of the nemesis which haunts all world superpowers our civilization has produced; death from asymmetric, dispersed, omnipresent forces (be them militarily, political or otherwise).
The very nature of a superpower make this intrinsic, it’s inescapable. Surviving as a superpower necessitates a level of freedom, the creation of freedom necessitated power, power is dispersed in tight concentrations. Ergo the emergent problem of asymmetric threats. The Roman Republic/Empire saw an analogous occurrence with the downfall of the Julio-Claudian System in which it progressively lost its client states (that were under loose cultural control) that served as physical and ideological buffers against the world and threats around it. All superpowers are too large (be it physically or virtually) to guard all levels of it’s society from attack and this became an immeasurable loss which ultimately required that Roman Imperial forces must guard against all threats, invasions, incursions, insurrections – where aspreviously the clients would handle such low-intensity threats. As I said before, no superpower can do this – and they eventually suffered many incursions which brought the former republic to it’s knees.
Today’s situation is vastly different in tangible ways, but it shares a deep connection in the threat and relative position. What was once a Roman Imperial boundary is now an American virtual one, a democratic one. We live in a time of instant communication, the ability to be anywhere in the world in a day, the ability to destroy an urban centre in an instant. But, the fundamental intangible remains – there is an ideological difference underlying this and there is where the solution lies.
So, work backwards from the Roman’s. Create a contemporary client state in the Middle East which will serve the purpose Cappadocia once did, but in a virtual way. Walls are futile, standing armies are futile. This is a war over populace, ideology… emotion.
So, pander exactly to that, create a free nation-state in the Middle East, one which is educated, prosperous, forward-looking and yet manageable. It’s effect will (and as we’ve seen in Iraq) serve as a virtual buffer, appealing to the human emotion and draw the ideological enemy in to fight as opposed to a world away in the United States.
The Short-term effects are exactly as I stated, to act as a buffer. We’ve seen it in effect; we’re seeing it become a battleground removed from the continental United States. There are also strong psychological effects of the shift from a war on the Americans, who it’s acceptable to kill, and your theological and cultural brothers.
This will manifest itself in the long-term by reinforcing the ultimate goal of democratization of the ME. It’s going to happen, as the 20th century has shown,
freedom is intoxicating and where there is a seed – a fanatical regime will fall given time.
The Saudi’s are insignificant fools in the long-term. They’re homeland is off-limits to military moves by a western power due to ideological and theological meaning. They’re a perfect case of geopolitics and why Iraq was the best choice. Saudi is a country on the edge due to its significance for much of the region, much better to let it sort itself out. Iraq on the other hand was a horrible regime, one which tried to Assassinate an American president, inflamed the Israeli-Palestinian issue by financing terrorists, had WMD and led the world to believe they were a threat at the least, they had connections to Al-Qaeda, and they have a stable country, educated middle class and working infrastructure oppressed under an asshole leader.
Why Iraq? Because it’s the key to American security in the 21st century. As I said before, the creation of the Iraqi Client State will be the greatest American achievement since the Monroe Doctrine.
