Befuddled Superpower By Patrick J. Buchanan November 21 , 2006 Befuddled Superpower by Patrick J. Buchanan - November 21, 2006 "For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?" On reading the Washington Post story by Robin Wright, "Bush Initiates Iraq Policy Review Separate from Baker’s Group," about a new internal review of U.S. war policy, St. Paul’s words return to mind. Here we are, longer in this war in Mesopotamia than America fought in World War I or World War II against Germany; yet, consider what our commander in chief — a successor to war presidents Lincoln, Wilson and FDR — is even now seeking to discover. "The president," said an anonymous White House official, "has asked the national security agencies to assess the situation in Iraq, review the options and recommend the best way forward. … The president indicated Monday that he is interested in hearing interesting ideas both within the administration and from the Baker-Hamilton commission." So critical is this review that Condi Rice postponed her departure for the Asia-Pacific summit to participate. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told the Post the secretary has been "doing a lot of thinking" about Iraq over the last two months. Thinking about what? Replied McCormack: "The primary focus is on the State Department role in Iraq and are we pursuing the proper policies, are we asking the right questions, are we seeking the right objectives, are we using the right means to achieve these objectives, following the right strategy and tactics?" Excuse me, but this sounds like some lost soul crying in a wilderness. Yet it is the voice of the foreign ministry of the world’s last superpower in the fourth year of a war to decide the fate and future of the entire Middle East. Should not these questions have been asked, and answered with finality, by our war leaders before they marched us up to Baghdad? Are these not the questions a Democratic Senate should have asked Don Rumsfeld and Colin Powell before they gave Bush a blank check for war? Incredible. The U.S. government is tasking the NSC, CIA, State and Defense to bring forward new ideas to extract us, without defeat, from a war into which we have been plunged by the elected leaders of that same government. How can the American people have confidence in war leaders who still do not know how best to fight, win or end this war, but must seek guidance from the bureaucracy? Whatever is said about Eisenhower and Nixon, both came in with clear ideas of how they intended to extricate us from unpopular wars. Both did so and won landslide re-elections. Both set out a clear goal, made the necessary military and diplomatic moves, and took the political heat. Apparently, our present war leaders, four years into the war, have no policy to win or end this war. They are throwing up questions, asking advice, pleading for ideas, begging for answers. Even the U.S. joint chiefs of staff have joined in the hunt. "One component of the larger (review) effort is likely to be a military review initiated in mid-September by Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff," writes Wright. "His assessment of anti-terrorism efforts, with a core focus on Iraq, includes 16 top commanders meeting daily to brainstorm on questions such as: ‘Where are we going? What are we trying to do? Are we going to get there this way?’" Is this not disconcerting? The most experienced warriors of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines are sitting around every day, asking one another: "Where are we going? What we are we trying to do?" Can one imagine Douglas MacArthur, Chester Nimitz, "Bull" Halsey and Curtis LeMay sitting around day after day in Honolulu, asking each other: "Where are we going? What are we trying to do?" A senior defense official provided added guidance: "Nothing is off the table. They are looking at the whole spectrum of less forces, more forces." This remark suggests the U.S. joint chiefs are open to all options, including defeat. For once U.S. forces begin to pull out of a war that is far from being won, we risk losing that war. Heretofore, President Bush had said America’s goal is "victory" and that we will not depart until it is achieved. By victory, he has meant eradication of al-Qaida in Iraq, defeat of the insurgency and an Iraq on America’s side in the war on terror. What these strategic reviews suggest is that not only do our leaders not know how to achieve "victory," they are no longer sure it is worth the cost. What these strategic reviews also suggest is that George Bush, the defiant leader atop the pile of rubble at the World Trade Center, George Bush "The Decider," George Bush the resolute war chief who will stay the course in Iraq if only Laura and Barney are still with him, has vacated the White House. In his stead sits a president asking questions, seeking ideas, searching for answers. If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?

Hey Kathy,

 

  Sad to say the intial Victory stratagey worked, though the author of this article fails to elude to that. Sadams regime is gone. The face of the war has changed, to a ground battle against fundamentalist that would in a heartbeat take over the Iraqui nation and install a new dictator if this new threat is not deverted and we leave without finishing the training, and stabilization of the Iraqui government.

  Thanks to political posturing and the media assault too many Americans decided we hate Bush like the media does and so they failed to look at the broader picture. To get back at one man they are accepting higher taxes, spend with no plans for limitations or means of finance without tax increase, history repeats itself. These people, the new majority ran in 2004 on a platform to quote unquote rethink our position, and plot a smarter path to victory. Yet when the Bush administration decides to rethink our position and plot a smarter strategy, they are showing signs of weakness. Make up your flippin minds.

  No Demorcratic candiate since Bush's elecetion to term one has campaigned without a promise to repeal the so called tax cut for the rich. That same tax cut that put 5,000 dollars in my familys hands each year, and allows us the luxury of buying needed items for home and family that we could not have otherwise afforded. My income is far below the median wage, and when the cuts began it was well below poverty and in no manner could I be called rich, so I guess the tax cut in reality was for all of us. Kiss that good bye because oops, you got mad at Bush and so you voted for Joe Democrat instead of re-electing a faithful public servant, you have aggreed countless times, has done thier job.

  In this last election the anti Bush movement saw tons of strong candidates, who would have made great congresional leaders fall by the wayside because of party affiliation. Get Bush was the cry from the pulpit of the press and yet Bush is still there, Bush has power of veto, Bush sets policy, and the rest of your government is back to the tax and spend Democrats of old.

  Our government is not strong and committed anymore, the new outlook is at least two years of fighting back and forth between Congress and the President. No progress can take place, Bush lans will be withdrawn from the floor, or defeated by the majority, simply because they are Bush plans, Democrat plans will fall to the veto, and the public will suffer. The T.V. will blame Bush, the Radio will blame Hillariously Clinton, ( The transplant because it was the only place on earth she'd be a shoe in New Yorker) and the inactivity will shame us all in the eys of every country. We will go from being leaders to being indecisive, and in 2008 you will have to choose which way your government should go. 

  You made it clear you hate Bush, but now you must think, do you love your country enough to do the research, and vote on the issues in 2008 giving each candidate a real chance, or will you say let's finish Bush off and even though he can be re-elected again vote for the Demorcrat just to spite him, or maybe you will go back to not voting at all.

 How could we as Americans have allowed the media to deswade our our minds, and voted for so many who's only platform was get BUSH? This election will go down in history as an election without issues, and decided by the public oppinion of one man. Case in point the Idaho Republican who was winning the election 3 days out, Bush stops by to lend his support and the tide shifts to a Demorcrat win. The last minute media blast was would you support this candiate just because Bush supports him? People saw Bush supports him and goodbye faithfull long term servant.

Please, don't think along party lines, don't let the media tell you how to ote and who to hate, and be well informed in 2008.

Andy Zeus Anderson

GOOD POST KATHY.--DON

Hello Gentlemen, People are followers, they only vote on what someone else tells them and what they see the majority doing.People are lazy now adays they do not research for the best canidate, they go vote but they really know nothing about any of it,they take time to get out of work just to look good and vote but they really are doing a diservice. When the wrong person gets chosen and they do not like what is going on they always bitch and complain but they forget they are the ones who put them in office to begin with, its a no win situation,your damned if you do and damned if you do not. so every one should really start getting more educated so they can for sure pick all the right canidates. Kathy/simikathy.com