THE PATH TO 9/11: IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN STOPPED; IN FACT, THE ENTIRE JIHADOTERRORIST MOVEMENT MIGHT'VE BEEN NIPPED IN THE BUD.
IT MIGHT'VE BEEN NIPPED IN THE BUD:
I think that Bush has done well in the GWOT, but he has not done enough. We could have been much more ruthless at Tora Bora, and Ramadi and Falluja and Najaf. We could have let Israel destroy Hizballah. He could EASILY be tougher on Putin and China and Iran and North Korea. And Saudi Arabia, and Syria and Lebanon.
DON'T GET ME WRONG: I am NOT saying that we're losing. We're winning, but not decisiely. WHY?! We're using half-measures which allow the enemy to retain more strength and maneuverability than he might otherwise have. It might even be enough for them to stage another huge and horrific attack. Here.
I feel that FDR and Truman and LBJ and Nixon were more ruthless in how they fought their wars, and that Bush (like GHW Bush in 1991, and Clinton in the Serbian War) has fought this war with one hand tied behind his back. Maybe it's a hangover form the Vietnam Syndrome? Maybe it's a result of all that "IRAQ=VIETNAM" defeatist BS/PR in the MSM and the DNC?
BOTTOM LINE: The way things are going now, in 2008 Glenn Reynolds will probably write:
IT MIGHT'VE BEEN NIPPED IN THE BUD:
BY CARTER (who let the jihadists takeover Iran in 1979, and was inept in his handlng of the hostage crisis and of Afghanistan);Glenn Reynolds posted this after watching THE PATH TO 9/11:
BY REAGAN (who let Hizballah get away with mass murder in Beirut in 1983);
BY GHW BUSH (who let Saddam off the hook in 1991);
AND BY CLINTON (who missed the most chances: after the 1993 WTC attack, after Khobar, after the embassy bombings, after the USS COLE attack).
Well, we certainly could have saved ourselves a lot of trouble if we'd acted more vigorously in the 1990s. But hindsight is always 20/20.I think we're making a similarly weak counter-attack to this day. That's why I feel we're the path to another 9/11 - only worse.
I think that Bush has done well in the GWOT, but he has not done enough. We could have been much more ruthless at Tora Bora, and Ramadi and Falluja and Najaf. We could have let Israel destroy Hizballah. He could EASILY be tougher on Putin and China and Iran and North Korea. And Saudi Arabia, and Syria and Lebanon.
DON'T GET ME WRONG: I am NOT saying that we're losing. We're winning, but not decisiely. WHY?! We're using half-measures which allow the enemy to retain more strength and maneuverability than he might otherwise have. It might even be enough for them to stage another huge and horrific attack. Here.
I feel that FDR and Truman and LBJ and Nixon were more ruthless in how they fought their wars, and that Bush (like GHW Bush in 1991, and Clinton in the Serbian War) has fought this war with one hand tied behind his back. Maybe it's a hangover form the Vietnam Syndrome? Maybe it's a result of all that "IRAQ=VIETNAM" defeatist BS/PR in the MSM and the DNC?
BOTTOM LINE: The way things are going now, in 2008 Glenn Reynolds will probably write:
"... we certainly could have saved ourselves a lot of trouble if we'd acted more vigorously in the last 8 years. But hindsight is always 20/20."I hope not. I hope Bush stops fighting like a wussie and wimp. And soon.
4 comments:
I'm afraid that's exactly what's going to happen. I don't think there is a plan to push the war further.
Since we've been on a bit of a Patton kick lately, here's another quote from the great man himself:
"I don't want to get any messages saying that, "We are holding out position." We're not holding anything! Let the Hun do that. We are advancing constantly and we're not interested in holding on to anything except the enemy. We're going to hold on to him by the nose and we're going to kick him in the *ss; we're going to go through him like crap through a goose."
Here's another:
Nobody ever defended anything successfully, there is only attack and attack and attack some more.
defense is possible. israel. europe in the 16ht c. south korea.
the free world during ww3/the cold war. ... and others...
but eventually, you have to DEFEAT the enemy.
the sad thing is the euroweenies and the left don't even have a basic siege mentality.
they have opened the gates. they want to pay tribute/appease. surrender another sudatenland -- ie iraq. maybe even israel.
and bush is the best we've got.
the left says he squandered the goodwill after 9/11. i agree SOMEWHAT: he should've nuked torabora then. now the middle is war-weary and the left dhimmitudinal.
waging an fdr/truman-like war ias TOUGHER now than in 2001.
nevertheless, that's exactly what must be done.
we have squandered a few years on useless talks with iran and kinjongil.
it is time to act.
Caught some big Al Qaeda fish in Afghanistan.
Check out LGF for the story.
It's late. I'm off to bed.
Post a Comment