December 21, 2003

Us bagel-eating Neo-Cons feeling smug...

[Ah ha! It is YOU who's been pulling the Bush-puppet's strings for the Zionistas! --I.C. Lighten up guys, it's a joke! I'm no Neo-Con. Just a plain-vanilla-wafer-Con)

The Washington Post has a pleasing editorial, The 'Bush Doctrine' Experiences Shining Moments. I have but a few quibbles...

...Those who developed the Bush Doctrine -- a policy of taking preemptive, unprovoked action against emerging threats -- predicted that an impressive U.S. victory in Iraq would intimidate allies and foes alike, making them yield to U.S. interests in other areas. Though that notion floundered with the occupation in Iraq, the capture of Hussein may have served as the decisive blow needed to make others respect U.S. wishes, they say...
The notion didn't "flounder," though it may have seemed so. It was our patience and persistence dealing with the difficulties and frustrations in Iraq that gave us the credibility that has impressed foes and allies.

In some ways it was better that the occupation has been difficult and bloody. We've been able to make a good start at laying to rest the notion that we will bug out when things get tough. And that we can be stopped by a chorus of shrieks and sneers and ankle-biting from the "International Community." And that we are captive to the "need for stability" in the ME.

An impressive start, impressive enough that various people are now nervously extrapolating our future moves as straight lines, and not bell-shaped curves.

...Bush still has some inconsistencies to work out with his doctrine. Earlier this month, he drew rebukes from conservatives for undermining democratic Taiwan to win favor with totalitarian China. And, as Bush's domestic opponents point out, he has been contradictory in his views of international organizations. Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) said the administration's support for International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors in Libya and Iran "is difficult to reconcile with the administration's previous ridicule of IAEA inspectors in Iraq." ...
These are not inconsistencies. We are asking Taiwan to stop grandstanding, and support us in the diplomatic firmness needed to deal first with NK, and then China. That's perfectly consistent. The B-Doc (As we bagel-eating SF Neo-Cons say) was always meant to lead to diplomatic strength, not to a series of wars.

And the IAEA inspections (and all the other inspections) are only useful when there is cooperation. They were always a farce in Iraq. If Libya or Iran cooperate, then the inspections will work just fine.

(via Betsy Newmark)

Posted by John Weidner at December 21, 2003 9:26 AM
Weblog by John Weidner