Anti-Bush simmering in the blogosphere has of late been turned to a boil, mostly over the administration's handling of Saudi Arabia. I first started seeing it on left-wing sites, like that of the reliably Bush-bashing Ara Rubyan, who most memorably showed a picture of Bush smiling and standing next to the Saudi Crown Prince as if it were an endorsement of all bad things Saudi. Then the generally right-leaning Diane E. Moon began regularly lambasting Bush over unsubstantiated allegations of corruption and overly friendly relations with the Sauds. Suddenly, libertarian Bill Quick and a host of his readers have pledged to vote the Democratic ticket in November, despite their loathing of everything the Democratic Party stands for today, and even despite their belief that Democrats are mostly dovish. Their rationale for this is based entirely on the fact that the Bush administration continues to call the Saudis our allies.
Far be it from me to suggest that the Saudi government isn't awful. I think that all these folks have their hearts in the right place. But their heads aren't in the right place at all. At least, not yet.
The first thing to understand is that the Saudis are our enemies. The second thing to understand is that they are our allies. The third thing to understand is that it is entirely possible for them to be both.
The urge to be hostile toward the bastards is commendable. But there are several reasons that this urge needs to be kept under control--for now. Let us look at this from a Realpolitik standpoint:
1) Arab governments are, without exception, brutal tyrannies where, ultimately, only one thing matters: power. You get respect by showing power. You lose it by showing weakness. We must understand this about Arab rulers before we can understand anything else.
2) It is not possible for us to punish the Saudis. Embargoing their oil is impossible. Note that I did not say "politically impossible" or "economically too damaging." I said it's impossible, period. Oil markets do not work that way. Unless we were to somehow blockade their country, which is also impossible, they would sell as much oil the day after any hypothetical U.S. Embargo than the day before.
3) We cannot go to war with the Saudis without much more evidence than we have now, and a lot more preparation. If you really want to set off a powderkeg, just imply to the Muslim world that the Americans are about to attempt to conquer Mecca and Medina, based solely on the circumstantial evidence we have so far against the House of Saud.
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia--forget it. The entire muslim world would be against us. We would also likely lose the Brits and everyone else; I doubt even Canada would be with us. Are we ready for that? Before you angrily shout, "Hell yeah, fuck them!" please stop and ask yourself if that will really lead us to long-term success.
Strategically, this would be a complete disaster.
-=-
Since it is impossible for us to cripple the Sauds economically, and war against them is out of the question without a great deal more time and preparation, what remains? Making demands that we cannot possibly enforce? Let's go back to what I said before: in the world of despots, you get respect by showing power. You lose it by failing to show it.
The fastest way of all to lose respect is to make demands that you cannot possibly back up with force.
(By the way, "Oil" and "The Oil Companies" have not a God Damned Thing to do with any of this, except in the most trivial ways. If anything, oil companies would have explosive profits, would be swimming in money, if we lost access to Arab oil. On the other hand, if we conquered Arab oil fields, oil companies would be ecstatic, since they'd no longer have to share money with Arab despots. There is no major downside to war in the Middle East for the oil companies. People who posit that the oil companies have anything to do with any of these calculations simply are not thinking clearly.)
So, what is left for us to do? Declare them our enemies? Be rude to them and seize their U.S. assetts? Great. We get the satisfaction of saying "fuck you." They get to flip the bird back, call us thieves and weaklings, and put all of their support behind Islamo-fascism. Instead of only half of it, as they do for the moment.
Insulting them may make Ara, Diane, Bill, and others feel good. But what will it accomplish beyond that?
-=-
So. If force is impossible for right now, and substantial economic harm cannot be inflicted, and if demands cannot be backed up with the threat of force, what exactly is a smart strategy? That's dictated by recognizing a couple of other things:
1) First and foremost, the Saudi government is despotic, but it is not a dictatorship. It is a divided oligarchy with competing factions, and a Crown Prince who does his best to maintain his balance atop them all. It is entirely possible for such a government to act as both our enemy and our ally. Which is exactly how they're acting.
2) Ultimately, the House of Saud members are Looking Out For Themselves. The Saudi Royal Family's only real religion is power, their only true God being their own pampered tushies. Some among them think their best route to maintaining power lies in moving away from the West. Some think it's in moving toward the West. The overall strategy the Crown Prince and his inner circle are persuing is playing both sides of the fence until they're sure which is the winning side: us, or Islamo-fascism (or "Islamism" or whatever else you want to call it). Otherwise, they'll maintain the status quo for as long as possible.
-=-
If I'm wrong about any of the above, please let me know. But if I'm right--and I think most of you must recognize that I am--then what is the best strategy?
It's simple. We must recognize that the road to victory runs straight through Bagdad, with a possible useful detour through Tehran. That was as true six months ago as it is today.
Taking Bagdad rids us of a dangerous despot and at least one more supporter of terrorism. But, frankly, what's more important is that it demonstrates to the Arab world that we are a force to be reckoned with, and that we will use deadly force in that region. It also gives us a substantial military stronghold right in the middle of the Arab world.
Another blow against terrorism. A military stronghold in the center of the region. A major boost to our prestige in a regime where prestige means more than anything.
I call that win-win-win. What do you call it?
Once we have Bagdad, we vindicate the forces in the House of Saud's oligarchy who say that Islamofascism is a long-term loser and that the West is the wave of the future. We also loom as a reasonable threat to others in the region in a way that we never could by simply being truculent to the Sauds.
In the meantime, what must we do? I suggest:
1) Maintain friendly personal relations. With despotic oligarchies, these things have far more weight than they do with any other type of regime, even a liberal democracy.
2) Maintain business relationships.
3) Utilize their status as titular allies to get their backdoor help in lining up other Arab regimes to assist us, rather than pissing them off and therefore causing them to try to hinder us. Even if they don't want our bases on Saudi land, their support, or their opposition, can often be the dealmaker (or breaker) in using neighboring nations to launch our attacks on Iraq.
Gosh. That all looks an awful lot like what the Bushies are doing, doesn't it?
It should be clear that publicly, the Sauds are too afraid to help us openly in our war aims. But we have every reason to believe that elements within their government are willing to make back-channel efforts to help us in places like the UAE, Qatar, and countless other Arab and Muslim regimes. To the extent that we're willing to maintain in public that they are our allies, they will continue to do at least some things to help us, and avoid doing at least some other things to hinder us.
This is as much a struggle for which faction is victorious within Saudi Arabia as it is anything else. We cannot declare war on them, because we simply are in no such position now. So, in short, we must:
A) Keep calling them our allies,
B) Keep talking to them and pressuring them for whatever help we can, and
C) TAKE BAGDAD AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
As I've said before, and will keep saying until someone finally acknowledges it: winning the war with the Axis required alliance with Stalin. In 1942, we had every reason to see Stalin as evilr. We also knew that even as we allied with him, he was still our enemy; as the Venona transcripts from the 1940s show, we knew that the Soviets were acting to infiltrate on us, spy on us, and that they ultimately aimed to overthrow our government both before and during our mutual war against Germany and Japan.
We knew they were doing this. We knew. We allied with them anyway. Why? Because it was necessary.
It is not a lie to call the Saudis our allies. If they do some things to help us--and they are doing things to help us--then they're our allies.
So. Say all you want about the bastard Saudis. Say all you want about their horrific legal system. Say all you want about Saudi treachery. You are right, about all of it. But they are our allies whether we like it or not. And we must continue to say "nice doggie' to them until we find an appropriate stick. Or brick, as the case may be.
So please stop kvetching when the President smiles while standing next to Stalin, while businessmen continue to try to keep up appearances and financial ties with Kruschev. And for God's sake, please encourage the Bushies to use this relationship with the two-headed snake to further our long-term goals, rather than bashing them for it.
Because the goal here isn't to make you feel good. The long-term goal is to win.
If you think I'm wrong about any of this, please explain what you think the right strategy is. I'm listening. I really am.
Nice to know I was first.
....Oh, and for the record, the aforementioned Bush-bashing article can be seen here at E Pluribus Unum.
And it's about the State Department's bungling of the Monica Stowers case, wherein her daughters have been abandoned to a life of medieval Muslim hell because, well, the State Department thinks it's a custody case.
It all sounds very nice, but you have far too much faith in this president's ability to do the right thing in Iraq. We still haven't finished anything in Afghanistan and this is what, 10 months later?
What makes you think that 10 months to solve the "Afghanistan Problem" is too long? We specifically destabilized the country in order to remove the only real power in the land. Afghanistan is also a very "balkanized" place where people really aren't used to respecting the authority of the central, official power. It will likely take years for a suitable stabilization of the country for us to reasonably declare the Taliban and Al Qaida out of the country. And even then I would doubt it.
At the outset I expected us to still be at war in Afghanistan 10 months later. I didn't expect it to end perfectly. The Taliban's ouster came quicker than myself or anyone else expected. I don't see how anyone characterizes it as a failure.
One wonders, w/ all this impatience, how past wars would've been ranked by some of the blogosphere:
April 1862---It's been over a year since Fort Sumter, and we're STILL not victorious. General Lee should launch an offensive as soon as possible. [Or: President Lincoln has shown he actually doesn't care about winning, but is spending his time on other affairs.]
September 1940---Churchill is an idiot. Rather than launching an immediate assault on the Continent (or, better yet, having forced his generals not to evacuate Dunkirk but keep the foothold in France), he is busily pursuing side-shows off in North Africa.
OTOH:
November 1950---Douglas MacArthur, a true soldier! Rather than paying attention to namby-pamby issues like "sightings" of Chinese, he's intent on pushing to the Yalu. Goodonya Doug!
Wars are, by definition, complicated things. Unforeseen consequences abound. While I consider myself a hawk, and have no trouble going after Saddam, taking the time to get the strategy right, rather than taking on the Saudis and wondering, after we've defeated Iraq "Now what??" strike me as eminently sensible approaches....
I don't pretend to understand the intricate details of what needs to be done in Iraq.
But I'm still giving W. the benefit of the doubt. If the year ends without anything happening, that goes.
I'm of the school that believes an attack will happen in the colder weather. Probably start with the dark of the moon again, as did Desert Storm.
I'm willing to wait and see.
Had there been blogs before WW II, I'm sure the libertarian bloggers would have argued that Churchill and Hitler were both evil "statists" and therefore not distinguishable from each other.
Come to think of it, this is exactly what some of the American isolationists did argue at the time.
An argument needs to consist of more than straw men and platitudes. Nobody wants to occupy Mecca and Medina, the "brutal Arab regimes respect only strength" trope supports your line rather less well than it supports your opponents', and it's hardly a dazzling insight to point out that it's sometimes necessary to lie down with snakes.
It doesn't follow that, because an alliance with Stalin was to our benefit, kow-towing to the Saudis is therefore providing vital protection. That's the case you want to make, and you haven't begun to make it. Perhaps you can start by giving concrete examples of how the Saudis are helping our cause against terrorists in the Middle East, in all the ways you outline above. Or, as seems to be the case, are you arguing that these great assistances are hypotheticals right now, but will surely kick in when we demonstrate that "we're a force to be reckoned with" by attacking Iraq?
Moira, to say that I have raised a straw man argument is to say I'm accusing someone of arguing things he is not.
But the Bush Bashers declare loudly that it is a lie to say the Saudis are our allies. Some even claim that the Saudi government was responsible for the September 11 attacks. They also propose making all possible efforts to take down the Bush administration for its failure to treat the Sauds as enemies.
If they do not propose making war on our enemies, what do they propose?
Tell you what. I've put up a quiz. Maybe you and others can answer it for me, and I'll understand better?
As it happens, there is a great deal of information suggesting that the Saudis are giving us back-door assistance. Including statements to that effect by members of the administration--sorry if you've missed them. Moreover, we know that some members of the Saudi royal family have been giving money to promote anti-Israeli and anti-American propaganda and "education" and have been raising money for the families of the "martyrs." We know why they're doing it--to save themselves from being toppled from power by Islamo-fascist elements.
We obviously want them to stop this. But how can we expect them to if we do not either force the issue, or prove to them (and the Islamo-fascist sympathizers) that we are dangerous?
We cannot expect them to stop having dealings with The Enemy until they have reason to believe that we mean it when we say we'll use force--and that we can win if we do.
The Saudi government looks the other way at our enemies because they are playing both sides of the fence. They have much reason to fear that if they side with us, they will be toppled from power. That fear will go away if we prove that we are truly a force to be reckoned with.
Finally, it should be self-evident to any intelligent person that the Saudis are exceedingly powerful in the Middle East and could do a great deal more to hinder our actions there if they wanted to.
Tell you what. Answer the quiz. If the Saudis are not our allies, if they are nothing but enemies, what do you propose that we do about it? Besides bashing the Bushies, I mean. Answer the quiz.
Moira,
I think the comparison is NOT to Stalin (whose USSR DID participate in WWII and was responsible for tying down enormous chunks of the Wehrmacht), but Franco's Spain.
Franco was, of course, a fascist. Was he much less noxious than Mussolini? Not really, but given his position (in particular, abutting Gibraltar, w/ ports on the Mediterranean AND the Atlantic, etc.), it was easier for the Allies to quietly neutralize him than to openly declare war on him.
Thus, he survived WWII, while his fellow dictators fell. Of course, Franco helped by providing quiet support that was never widely reported (including some insight into what was going on in Germany during the war), and by NOT allowing the Germans to take Gibraltar in '40-'41.
The point is that in the current situation, one would expect (hope) that there are various sorts of back-channel maneuverings by all sides, w/ the focus being on Saddam first. (Note, too, that after the fall of Germany and Italy, Spain was never much of a fascist threat---another case of "pour encourager les autres"?)
"We still haven't finished anything in Afghanistan and this is what, 10 months later?"
HUH??????
What is your idea of "finished in Afghanistan"? If you are/were expecting us to turn it into a clone of Peoria,Illinois complete with Wal-Mart and McDonalds/TacoBell/KFC, then you're right. We are not finished and never will be.
Because that's not what we went there for.
We went there because the Taliban succored and protected a group of people who made war on the US---we went there to punish them and to disrupt them.
Which we accomplished quite well, thankyouverymuch.
Nor did we go there to find an kill every single person who had hate in his heart for the US and wished us harm. We destroyed them as an organization, and probably killed their leaders.
And the BIG thing that we accomplished was to serve notice to the entire world, that if you severely f*ck with the US of A, we will obliterate you and anybody who helps you.
Moira, I think you have it wrong. (Disclaimer: I think the Saudis are darned close to evil, and will not shed a single tear when they fall, and wish to heck our State Department would stop giving them the Full Monica.)
The main "great assistances" that they Saudis are giving us is to refrain from getting in our way. For most of Europe, the assistence we expect to get is that they'll hold our coats. From the SA's the assistance that we want is that they don't toss our coat into a mudpuddle. And so far, this is just about what we are getting.
I suspect that after Iraq falls, the entire Middle East will undergo a drastic shift. They are all well aware of what happened with the former government of Afghanistan when we got pissed off at them. AFter Iraq, well.......
As we used to say in physics:
One dot makes a point,
two dots make a line.
No ruler in the ME is going to want to become the third point that confirms the line.
Previously in Dean's World, Dean said:
OK, we'll stipulate the textbook definition of "straw man"....Well, christ, even Stalin didn't stab us in the back during the dark days of WWII.Let's get one thing straight: If I'm bashing anyone, it's the Saudis not Bush.
But you seem to feel that if I bash the Saudis that means I'm bashing Bush...?
Have it your way.
But I have one question:
Why are you defending the Saudis? I don't get it!
STRAWMAN ALERT! "Take down" the Bush administration?You mean "vote against them in the next election?"
Goodness gracious, I certainly hope so.
Been there, done that. Read my comments either on your blog, or on mine.Still waiting for your response.
P.S. When are you going to stop being so soft on terror?
Ara, you speak of straw men, then perform some ludicrous "have you stopped beating your wife?" rhetoric.
"Why are you defending the Saudis? I don't get it!"
"When are you going to stop being so soft on terror?"
And you would not call the statement that you hope "they vote against [the Bush administration] in the next election" Bush-bashing? Or did I mis-read your exclamation of "I hope so."?
The Soviets did stab the West in the back general, and the US in particular. First Stalin signed the Non-Agression Pact with Germany, hoping that western Europe would indulge in a mutually exhausting WWI repeat. This would allow the Soviets to pick up the pieces. Then he offered to practically join the Axis in 1940, but at a price that Hitler didn't want to pay. After that, he deliberately, and with malice aforethought, broke every non-battlefield agreement with the Allies, from Poland onward. Not to mention that he gave orders (in case the West did cross the Lubliana Gap into Austria/Hungary) that Tito should attack Allied troops.
The trick is to pick your fights. Any damn fool can start one they can't finish.
Dean, I believe you are correct in all you say on this post. Once there is an American army in conquered Iraq there will be an awful lot of people assurring us that they were always on our side, really and truly. One of the reasons for using a substantial force there is to place an army in the central position with respect to Iran, Syria, and the Saudi Entity. This will give us the opportunity to succor any democratic revolution in Iran. It will also enable us to project power in any direction and bring pressure to bear on any of the surrounding countries. We can then begin to demand a cleanup and see to it ourselves if necessary. The British campaign in the area in 1941 went in just that order, first Iraq, then Iran and Syria.
It may be frustrating to wait while the diplomatic and logistical arrangements are made, but we want to ensure that when the curtain goes up there are no bumps in the way. Halting short of Baghdad because we did not bring enough troops to cover the LOC and assault the city too would be a shot in the arm to our enemies and a severe hit to our reputation. It is necessary to make our enemies fear us, and stumbles along the way do not help. One of the reasons we are in this war today is that the Arab world decided they had no good reason to fear the US, no matter what they did. Bin Laden's comments about our habit of pulling out of places when the going got hairy is testimony to this.
All in all you gave a good analysis.
Good stuff. A couple of points, though.
We kept Stalin as an ally because he had become stronger than us, he didn't need us to beat the Germans in the end, so we wanted a piece of the Soviet victory, and needed to call some of that victory ours. Otherwise we would have to have continued WW2, against him, in 1945. No parallel exists to the Saudis. They are very weak. Indeed, even their hold on their own people is tenuous.
Even though Iraq is secular, Arabs instinctively will protect them, albeit with rhetoric alone. We can't expect any Arab support other than a few of the Gulf States.
A democratic Iraq will, maybe as their first act, throw us out. Having bases for our troops in Iraq is a very thin rationale for invading the country, as it may be unrealizable. Unless you visit the region it is impossible to understand the degree of mistrust that exists among the Kurds and Shia for us. With very good reason. The USA is a very treacherous ally itself. We don't keep our promises, and many thousands of our allies have died as a result.
For the same reason, we should not expect those indigenous people in Iraq who we believe should be our allies to rise up to help defeat the Ba'ath.
Stalin's Russia was stronger than the US in 1945? Wrong, 180 degrees. By then Russia was bleeding from a thousand cuts. Worse, the overwhelming bulk of the logistical support for the Soviet Forces dependied on US supplies, even down to food. Russia is the ocuntry, after all, that had gutted its own food supply during the years 1929-1933, rducing production of grain by 45%. The ability of the Soviet forces to defeat the Germans depended on the ability to move the STAVKA Reserve, about 50-60 divisions. That was Stalin's comment at the end of the war. This depended on American trucks and other logistical support. Without them the tanks were just armored pill boxes. Russia could seem stronger than it was, due to its penchat for secrecy, but we were stronger.
The US Air Force was dominant. US army formations were comparatively fresh, certainly when compared to Russian ones. The trouble was that they were needed to fight Japan. We did not know if the A-bomb would work or, if it did, if the Japanese would surrender afterwards. We had to prepare for an invasion. Later there was the imperative to demobilize.
Nor was there any reason to start fighting Russia in 1945, even if we did not have Japan to finish off. Up to that point most incidents with Russia were not significant enough to justify pulling out of the alliance (Poland maybe excepted). Nor could such a reversal be explained to the American people so as to gain their support, not unless the Soviets did something really idiotic like attacking our troops. But they would not. Stalin's view might be, as Milovan Djilas noted in "Conversations With Stalin," that there would be fifteen or twenty years to recover then have another go round, but he knew he needed to recover. It was when America withdrew most of its forces from Europe and seemed to be weakened and unable to stand up to pushing that he started to get aggressive, culminating in the Berlin Blockade and the Korean War. But that was far in the future in May 1945.
I agree with Michael Lonie (flash back to "Blazing Saddles":"Howard Johnson is right about Van Johnson's being right", etc. [grin]), except for a couple of small quibbles.
The main one is about Russia using American trucks. The US made the best trucks in the world (at the time), and the Soviets the best tank (T-34). So, it made sense that they requested US trucks so that their own plant could concentrate on making good tanks instead of mediocre trucks.
It also depends on how you define strength. The Soviet Union still had a great number of troops in 1945, as well as their traditional propensity to spend them. It still would have been very difficult for the US to invade the USSR and win without nukes. The US populace didn't have (as Michael remarked) motivation to support that kind of war at all.
Ara: In fact there are people who suggest openly that the Saudi government was responsible for the September 11 attacks. That's not a straw man, it's real. Just because you didn't say it doesn't mean no one said it. If you're going to be part of the Bush Basher squad, then you should be aware that some on your side are saying that, and either defend them or repudiate it. I'm certainly willing to repudiate those on my side of the argument who want to start lobbing nuclear weapons at everyone in the Middle East (and there are Hawks who advocate that, I'm not making them up either).
The Soviets stabbed us in back the repeatedly throughout World War II. They were actively involved in manuevering to keep and hold huge swaths of Eastern Europe despite promises to the contrary, and actively engaged in subversive activity and espionage on American and British soil. All throughout World War II. Both Churchill and Roosevelt were quite aware of all this on the day this photo was taken:
Presumably, therefore, FDR and Churchill and their supporters were soft on totalitarianism. At least, in Ara's worldview.
Now, as it happens, both the British and American governments were quite busy with counterespionage work against not just the Axis but also against our Soviet allies throughout World War II. Yet there was Roosevelt, snuggling up with the monster.
If you like, I'll be happy to find more smiling pictures of FDR with Stalin. Will that make you feel better? Perhaps we should paint Roosevelt as a traitor, a Commie ass-licking scumbag.
I guess Joe McCarthy was a righteous man, eh? Anything to attack your political opponents, right?
I frankly don't think the House of Saud rises to the level of Stalinism, as awful as they are. Regardless, if it is in our interests to call them our allies, we should do so. In the end, we'll have to deal with them, no question. I doubt it'll take 50 years though.
Re: Stalin being an ally in WWII --
At least he was actively engaged in killing Nazis.
And to my knowledge he wasn't holding any telethons for kamikaze fliers in the Pacific.
(24 words)
More later...
(2 words, not including ellipses)
Your truly,
Ara
P.S. When did your blog-hosting service start charging you by the word?
(16 words)
Total wordage = 42. Over-charges for 17 extra words will be paid, net 30.
:^)
The limit on the number of words is an attempt to get kvetchers to have the discipline--and the courage--to clearly and unequivocally state what they want the Bush administration to do. With no partisan sniping, cheap shots, equivocations, or empty-headed blathering.
So far, you guys are batting 0 on the former, and 1000 on the latter. I take this as a sign that you are all at least one of the following:
A) Intellectual cowards
B) Intellectual weaklings
C) Buttheads who put partisanship above the interests of the country.
I take your continued inability to clearly state what you want done about the Saudis as proof that your only real desire is to slander and spread disunity in a time of war. I thus take it even further:
I openly question your loyalty and your patriotism.
Not because you question the President's policy, or criticize the President. But because you slander and whine without saying exactly what you want his policy to be.
Do we invade Saudi Arabia or do we not? Do we declare them enemies or do we not? Do we insult them in public or do we not? Do we invade Iraq or do we not? If the President meets with the Saudis but won't be seen with them in public, will you applaud this or will you slander him for having "secret meetings," and have you even considered the possibility that this might cause more mischief than good?
Please clearly and unequivocally state exactly what you want the policy toward the House of Saud to be, and stand ready to defend that position. Or shut the fuck up and let the grownups fight the war.
Dean,
You crack me up!
I'm defending the Bush Doctrine and you're defending Bush!
The irony is delicious! Hoo-ha!
Seriously, go back and read my 2 responses to your 2 quizzes.
Read past the first quiz/response -- we were both having fun with that one.
The second quiz/response was more serious...
...and other than running over the arbitrary 25 word limit, I think my analysis was fair and balanced.
Did you actually read it?
But if you are still unsure of how to handle the Saudis, I'll make it simple for you:
Follow the Bush Doctrine. (4 words!)
Remember the Bush Doctrine?
Let's see a show of hands -- how many people think the Bush Doctrine is still a valid expression (hell, it's less than 25 words!) of our principles and objectives.
Why am I the only one who bothers to mention it and defend it?
Even Bush isn't defending it!
Someone once said most people don't have a memory that stretches back beyond this morning's breakfast.
Is that what's going on here?
Why has everyone lost track of the Bush Doctrine?
If we followed the Bush Doctrine, our attitude toward the Saudis would be different.
Make no mistake: Saddam must be crushed; but we don't need the Bush Doctrine for that.
But if the Bush Doctrine is still valid...
...if President Bush meant what he said on Sept 20, 2001...
...in front of a joint sesssion of the US Congress...
...in front of the American people...
...and before the eyes of the entire world...
...if the Bush Doctrine means anything at all, then our attitude to the Saudis should be pretty clear.
Is that so hard to understand?
Ara Rubyan
P.S. Oh and Casey and Rosemary: you guys crack me up too -- your number one defense witness for the Saudis is....(drum roll please)....Joe Stalin!
Bwahahaha!
Right. I'd like to hear the communique that mentions his name in the same sentence as CP Abdullah. Bwahahaha!
But I'll remind you again: when all else was said and done, at least Stalin was overtly engaged in the killing of Nazis.
The Saudis? Covertly engaged in the killing of Jews.
Wake up guys. This is getting downright embarassing.
I am not defending Bush, and you are not defending the Bush Doctrine. I am explaining the realities of war. You are bashing our leader while steadfastly refusing to specify what exactly you want our leader to do.
Tediously repeating the phrase "Bush Doctrine" is not an answer. It is not even half an answer.
I have read your messages again. They contain nothing but the same generalities and ideological blatherings that I've been complaining about.
It is incumbent upon you to say what actions you think would be in keeping with the doctrine you claim to support--and, more importantly, you need to specify which ones you would support.
---
I'm tired of this game. It's pathetic. Clearly, no answer is forthcoming, except childlike chanting and meandering rambles with no specific suggestions. Except, apparently, "Bush shouldn't be seen in public with the Sauds" and "Powell needs to make the State Department act a little meaner."
Pathetic. But until I get an answer to his question, I will be responding to no more of you messages, nor will I be reading you site any longer.
Dean, I would like to take a moment to remind you of a basic law: "When it stops being fun, walk away."
In this case, I think you are taking Ara's posts far too seriously. He's acting like a twit. He'll get over it (I hope)... Don't let it bother you, ok? It isn't like we are personally deciding the fate of the nation here, eh? Frankly I think 99% of the bloggers out there forget just how trivial they are in connection with the real world. Most blogs are just vanity pages, or very boring public diaries.
Please don't misunderstand me; I think you do a good job of commentary and inviting comment. This is why I still read from, and respond to this site. I also think that a minority of the blogs out there (those who try) help cast a light into corners otherwise ignored by mainstream media.
I feel that this is one of the most valuable functions of blogs: to bear witness to the world around us in ways that might not be immediately apparent to our neighbors.
Continue to bear witness as you do so well. Just remember "Vinegar" Joe Stillwell's motto: "Illegitmati non carborundum"...
I'm not "not having fun." I'm annoyed, but only at the sickening lack of patriotism and the fairly transparent attempts to derail the war for partisan political reasons.
I have about 250 daily readers. To whatever extent that is an "influence," it's certainly worth fighting the war of words for the country's future safety so far as I'm concerned. But I don't fancy that I'm all that important in the vast scheme of things, or even as important as one foot soldier. But I do what I can, and words and ideas do matter some.
And I think this matters.
I have respect for people who criticize our leaders' policies, IF they are willing to step forward and say, "I think this is wrong, and I want to see A, B, and C done instead."
Bill Quick, while I disagree with him, is so far the only one of the anti-Bush crowd with the cojones or intellectual integrity to do that. He's been very clear; he wants us to immediately withdraw all our troops from Saudi Arabia, to force all American business interests to leave the country, to freeze all Saudi assetts at home and as much as we can abroad, and openly declare them a terrorist regime. On the other hand, he specifically says we should not invade them because that's too dangerous.
That's specific. It makes sense. It's not treasonous.
I, on the other hand, think that The Bush Doctrine is best defended by making smart strategic choices. And I don't think those are the best choices, right now.
Ask me after Bagdad. I may have a different perspective.
I respect people's right to disagree with me.
I don't respect people who attack our leaders, in time of war, but haven't got the balls to say what they want our leaders to do instead. This smacks of petty partisanship or, even worse, attacking just because they don't personally like the President.
In normal times that's immature. In times of war, it borders on treasonous--because it sows disunity to no constructive purpose.
Wow...I'm...speechless....
Well...not quite.