Presidential Debate

[kandrathe]

...And will he finally apologize, for all the lies. I mean this is Watergate to the power 10.
[right][snapback]57235[/snapback][/right]

In my best Inigo Montoya accent, "I don't think that word means what you think it does." :) Watergate involved the criminal breaking and entering of a psychologists office by the Presidents men at his direction to plant illegal wiretapping equipment so that he could dig up dirt on his political opponents. This is no Watergate, and this war is no Vietnam. If I tell you I believe something to be true, and then later find out I was wrong, was I lying to you?

I think there was a political expediency in presenting the worst possible case againt Saddam, to try to form the broadest possible support for an action that was distasteful, yet neccesary. Unfortunately, the repercussions are that now people, such as yourself, can refer back to errors in that "case" against Saddam and recriminate the speakers. Some of that is justified. WMD as a case for Iraq is analogous as the Gulf of Tonkin incident was to Vietnam. In retrospect, the fervor for a resolution to the situation was already there. But, there lacked a clear reason to commit to the endeavor.

I think if this war was linked to fighting the global war on terrorism, then that linkage needed to be made clearer. What is hard to do is to imagine what the world would be facing now if Saddam had not been ousted. UN Sanctions, corrupted, failed and lifted, a possible nest for Zarqawi's group in league with Iraqi Intelligence, and the renewal of WMD research and development.

We all know that this toilet needed cleaning, but nobody wanted to get dirty. Unfortunately, there are other cesspools waiting for our attention. Hopefully, if we show some resolve in cleaning up this one, some of the others might get the hint and clean up their own messes.

I found this book interesting.

Amazon.com
From its opening-line salvo—"It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world"—Of Paradise and Power announces a new phase in the relationship between the United States and Europe. Robert Kagan begins this illuminating essay by laying out the general differences as he sees them: the U.S. is quicker to use military force, less patient with diplomacy, and more willing to coerce (or bribe) other nations in order to get a desired result. Europe, on the other hand, places greater emphasis on diplomacy, takes a much longer view of history and problem solving, and has greater faith in international law and cooperation. Kagan does not view these differences as the result of innate national character, but as a time-honored historical reality--the U.S. is merely behaving like the powerful nation it is, just as the great European nations once did when they ruled the world. Now, Europe must act multilaterally because it has no choice. The "UN Security Council is a substitute for the power they lack," he writes.

Kagan also emphasizes the inherent ironies present in the relationship. European nations have enjoyed an "American security guarantee" for nearly 60 years, allowing them to cut back on defense spending while criticizing the U.S. for not doing the same. Yet Europe relies upon the U.S. for protection. This has led America and Europe to view the same threats much differently, as evidenced by the split over how to deal with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Kagan points out that some European leaders are more afraid of how the U.S. will wield its power in the Middle East than they are of the thought of Hussein or other "rogue state" leaders acquiring weapons of mass destruction.
Kagan’s brevity is as impressive as it is appreciated; most writers would have required thrice as many pages to get to their point. At any length, the book is nothing short of brilliant. This is essential reading for those seeking to understand the post-Cold War world. --Shawn Carkonen

Similiarly, I've stated this in the Lounge before that in hindsight perhaps Vietnam as a proxy war was the venting of pressure that was needed to defuse the real war between the US and the Soviets. In the end, both sides can claim a pyrrhic victory. The Soviets invested heavily to get their puppet regime in place in Vietnam, and within a decade the US saw the end of the Soviet Union. Only the respective sides soldiers and the people of proxy nation end up with the suffering.