A couple of thoughts:

Charles Krauthammer -- neoliberal?

Bush Doctrine -- I have long been an unabashed proponent of the Bush Doctrine. I see no reason to back off now.

But I do declare, I am getting tired of being more Catholic than the Pope here, if you catch my drift.

United Nations -- I thought it was a mistake to invest any hope in the UN and said so at the time Bush made his vaunted speech to that august body.

They were laughing up their sleeve then, and they're doing it again now.

Saddam's UN strategy always was "divide and conquer." What were we thinking?

N. Korea -- Am I the only one who thinks Kim Jong Il and Yoko Ono were separated at birth?

Krauthammer started as a left-wing Democrat who wrote for years for The New Republic. Then he moved to the left-leaning editorial page of the Washington Post, where he was kept not for his "conservative" views but for what the publisher said were "hard to categorize" viewpoints.

He's been awfully irate with Democrats the last few years, but I remain rather surprised that anyone thinks of him as a hard right guy, although I guess some do now, I dunno.

--

As for the U.N. strategy: it's been clear to met hat we needed time to build up our forces and our logistics. And we also wanted as many allies as possible. The U.N. gambit's done that. But it's about run out its usefulness.

I think of Krauthammer as a right wing guy, and not wishy washy about it either.

Either Iraq under control of Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath Party has weapons of mass destruction or they do not. Either they are a threat to the physical safety of the United States and its interests, or they are not. If either of these statements have a none-negative answer, then we have justification to take military action against Iraq, at a time and under conditions as determined by the United States government. That is what we elect them for and pay them for.

Inasmuch as the Bush administration has determined through its intelligence sources that the present government of Iraq presents a clear and present danger to this country, then the administration has an obligation to treat Iraq as an enemy state and make war with the strongest forces that can be used to get the job done at least cost to the United States and with the fewest American casualties.

And if we fail to do this, and Iraq acquires deliverable nuclear capability of biological agents capable of inflicting mass death, what then? Does anyone imagine these will not be used against us, or the Israelis or western interests somewhere? If so, there should be no doubt that either the US or Israel will use weapons of mass destruction against them, possibly including the thermonuclear incineration of Baghdad, its entire population, and any other Arab targets they may deem necessary to destroy in order to stop the terror. The experiences of dealing with Adolf Hitler and his crazy regime should have taught us that attempting to accomodate tinhorn dictators inevitably led to the need to mass murder their citizens.

Allies are unimportant. The UN (what the late Israeli statesman David Ben-Gurion contemptously referred to as the "Oom-Shmoom") is even less important. As long as the United States commands the military power to carry out its foreign policy -- when that power is in fact needed -- then it should be applied without delay. In any case, when the Ba'ath regime is destroyed and we install a puppet regime in Baghdad, we will have all the bases we need in that part of the world, because Iraq is a relatively large country. As for allies, we won't need them then any more than we do now, but other countries will line up to kiss the collective ass of the United States after we use our true power.

I remember seeing a film once about the experiences of a British spy in the USSR in the 1920s, early in the Stalin era. Stalin is conversing with Dzerzhinsky. He says:

"Feliks, there's one thing about power that you can't deny. It's the one thing in the world you can't fake; either you have it or you don't."

Well, I believe in that principle as truly as Josef Stalin did, and that is exactly the way I want to see the United States run its foreign policy in a time as dangerous as the present era with its all but permanent clash of civiliizations against Islam.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

I thought Krauthammer was a liberal in the 1980’s. Then I thought that maybe he is a conservative since he waxes eloquently on foreign policy these days. You know how Democrats are foreign policy(less). Nothing is so scary as seeing a Democrat running for President speak publicly on foreign policy (like John Kerry).

Now, I wonder is Krauthammer a liberal? I do not worry about credibility regarding Iraq or North Korea. Everybody, even the French, understand that both of these governments are totalitarian dictatorships. They have the same old, tired totalitarian tendencies that Stalin and Hitler did. Iraq IS a threat to our national security and will remain a threat to our national security as long as Saddam Hussein remains alive.

There is no doubt whatsoever that Saddam Hussein sponsors international terrorism. He pays bounties to families of Palestinian homicide bombers, for God’s sake. He will undoubtedly use any nuclear or biological weapon he develops.

After we dispatch with Mr. Saddam Hussein we can then deal with N. Korea on our own time. We need not go to war with Kim Jong Il. He has isolated himself alone at the top of the world where he has absolutely no friends.

I thought Krauthammer was a liberal in the 1980’s. Then I thought that maybe he is a conservative since he waxes eloquently on foreign policy these days. You know how Democrats are foreign policy(less). Nothing is so scary as seeing a Democrat running for President speak publicly on foreign policy (like John Kerry).

Now, I wonder is Krauthammer a liberal? I do not worry about credibility regarding Iraq or North Korea. Everybody, even the French, understand that both of these governments are totalitarian dictatorships. They have the same old, tired totalitarian tendencies that Stalin and Hitler did. Iraq IS a threat to our national security and will remain a threat to our national security as long as Saddam Hussein remains alive.

There is no doubt whatsoever that Saddam Hussein sponsors international terrorism. He pays bounties to families of Palestinian homicide bombers, for God’s sake. He will undoubtedly use any nuclear or biological weapon he develops.

After we dispatch with Mr. Saddam Hussein we can then deal with N. Korea on our own time. We need not go to war with Kim Jong Il. He has isolated himself alone at the top of the world where he has absolutely no friends.

I am really rather surprised by people who say we don't need allies, and really surprised at people who think our credibility does not matter.

Even if you are universally acknowledged to be the toughest fighter on the planet, this doesn't make you omnipotent. Offend enough people, and you may find yourself facing far more casualties than necessary, and wasting far more resources than you otherwise might--and our resources are not unlimited.

I'm less concerned about Western Europe's opinions than I am about the opinion of the various thugs around the world we have to deal with. These people have been fence-straddling since 9/11, trying to help us, but trying not to help us too much, trying to crack down on terrorists, but trying not too hard, etc.

If we walk away from Iraq then we tell all those Middle Eastern states that they are better off backing Wahabbism and terrorist groups than they are supporting us. Because we'll have told them, loud and clear, that we speak loudly and carry a small stick.

Some argue we've already done just that in North Korea. I'm somewhat of a dissenter in this view, in that I think it's always been obvious that our options with North Korea are strongly limited. But you cannot think that the thug-regimes of the world aren't watching us, and adjusting their plans accordingly.

Don't make the mistake of listening to the Democratic cant about "going it alone".

We are "going it alone" with Britain, Australia, New Zealand and damned near every country in Europe EXCEPT France and Germany.

The US is worthless, always has been, and is in the process of proving it. In 10 years, the UN will be meeting in Zimbabwe, and no one there will speak English.

Krauthammer is right, but more importantly: is how's Rosemary doing?

I have a major quibble with Krauthammer's article: he says France's flat refusal to condone any action was "utterly predictable." Funny, I don't recall anyone saying that before that news article came out, Krauthammer in particular. France dragging their feet, yes. Waiting until the UN votes yes, or until the US acting and then jumping in; these things would be predictable. But not this complete stonewalling.

Arnold, I agree with Dean. Allies are important, but not essential. They can be useful. And, to clarify my position, when push comes to shove I believe the US should act "unilaterally" if it has to. This is not a reason to refuse to act.

I am sure Bush is playing the "play by the rules, go with the UN" game for domestic consumption; it is more important that he convinces Americans that he's bent over backwards trying to follow the rules than doing so for (say) Europe.

Arnold, I think you are wrong in one respect: creating a puppet regime in Iraq would be a very bad idea. One of the few justifiable reasons to invade Iraq is to build something better than the snakepit that's in charge now. Despite all the pessimism about "democracy in an Arab country", Iraq is one of the more likely candidates, with a healthy GDP and an educated populace. Not to mention a democratic government would give tremendous encouragement to the people in Iran.

Dean, I've said this before, but timing is everything, and sometimes patience is a virtue. Go back and check some history. It's easy to read about WW2 or the Civil War now, but the people who lived through it had to do so one day at a time. Look at this as a contemporary version of "Second Front NOW!". I know it's frustrating, but keep the faith...

Gary, did you meant to say "the UN is worthless?" [grin]

Dean, I do not value allies or multilateralism highly. In war, there are few efforts more difficult to coordinate than the military actions of a group of sovereign governments. Indeed, Marshal Foch, the French supreme commander of the Allied forces that fought imperial Germany late in World War I, commented drily: "My admiration for Napoleon has decreased, now that I know the limitations of a coalition." He was referring, of course, to the British-led coalition that drove the Corsican to Waterloo and broke his power. Therefore, I would prefer the United States to act alone in war. Or if we indeed have allies, then simply to inform them about what we intend to do, then carry out the action.

Casey, I do not like euphemisms. A government that we put into power and prop up with our guns is in fact our puppet until it can stand on it own. The term may not sound nice, but I could not care less. The governments that came into being in Germany, Japan and Korea following World War II were of course puppets of the occupying powers. These occupying powers were the USSR, the USA, Britain and France. The latter two counted for nothing, and kept troops in western Germany solely because the United States propped up their postwar regimes. All that counted were the USA and the USSR, and we called the tune in our respective zones of power. The German, Japanese and Korean regimes that we set up could have been dumped at any time it suited the USA and the USSR. They were puppets dependent on the will of outside powers. If we kill or expel Saddam Hussein and thereby destroy his regime and send in occupation troops, the succeeding government shall indeed be our puppet, because we will be the government that pulls its strings.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI