Letters to the Editor
-
Pro War Ideology, Pro-Appeasement Foreign Policy
This is just another example of George Bush straying from his parties core beliefs. Heritage has written volumes on the growing Chinese military threat, their blue water Navy, and freedom of the seas.
Bush has been an apologist on China, mentioning reunification in a speech in Taiwan, and pulling troops back from the DMZ in Korea. The facts, which won't be known for another decade, is that Bush is the weakest, most frivilous President in recent history.
The NATO missile provocation directed at Russia, was Cheney's idea, but it fit neatly into their plan to isolate liberal Europe. After 9/11 it became clear that the European leaders were an obstacle to America's authority. (The Balkans War was a U.S. run operation, with reluctant U.N. approval. China vetoed the action, and we bombed their embassy in Belgrade in retaliation.)
Bush two succeeded in separting the anti-war left from the mainstream Democratic party, to further solidy the break that was made in Gulf War I.
The real victim is a rational foreign policy. I've thought for some time that at least one Democrat would hammer Bush on this, but so far no takers. It is possible be against the Iraq war, and in favor of a tougher foreign policy on China. Putin's jointly run anti-terrorist missile defense sites was a Machievellian deal. Arming Iran was a gentle hint from Putin, for Bush to go in. Russia wants to be the new OPEC, which makes the old OPEC something of a problem. Bush one would have taken the offer, he was a player. Bush two should know that the weapons Russia gave the Iranians would not be enough, and would never be in capable hands, and that Russia would share key intelligence on Iran's military capability. Apparently one discretionary war is all a President is allowed. Bush two used his in Iraq.
The pro-war ideology you mention contains a great deal of appeasement, especially concerning China. The real bargaining chip for this Bush administration is Europe. To that purpose we have been able to influence their elections, and bring more Right Wing leaders to power. (Maybe Rove was more successful than we think).
The policy of the two leading Democratic Presidential contenders doesn't deviate much from the Bush policy where it concerns preemptive action. Clinton two has already made hawkish overtures on Iran. Obama is going into Pakistan, no matter what. The real question is where is the larger foreign policy going? What's the deal with China? Is a right leaning Europe in our interests? What are the domestic consequences of all this militancy?