Think the Bush administration has been too quick to use military force? William Kristol argues otherwise in a provocative Time essay, going back even further to dream about what might have been had the United States intervened earlier, more robustly or both in World War I, Nazi Germany and elsewhere, and then in the Balkans, Somalia, Rwanda and Afghanistan. Kristol, whose day job is editor of the Weekly Standard, concludes: “If we revert to timidity in the face of threats and passivity in the face of dictators, we could present to the world the sorry spectacle of a great nation unwilling or unable to draw the sword on behalf of justice.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
23 Comments
Kirstol is one the those nut jobs that started the Project for a New American Century (the P.N.A.C.). No one should take his opinion or advise even if he said it was raining and you should put on a rain coat! Using America military might to become an Imperialistic force in the world. “Do as we say or be blown back to the cave man days!”.FYI, Chenney , Rumsfield, Wolfowitz and Pearl are all charter members of that group… Did I leave anyone of the Bush administration out? Oh yeah Bush is not a member, he failed the entrance exam and Condi is not maybe it is a all boys club.
The United States should only use force to protect the United States. Nobody appointed us to be the world’s cop. As for Europe, the EU is plenty strong enough to have a military and defend itself. As for the middle east, I don’t give a horse hock. The Arabs and Africans have been killing each other for centuries and always will and we are not going to stop it.
Kristol pretty well hit the nail on the head.
writedog what’s it l;ike to be brain dead?
Kristol pretty well hit the nail on the head.
writedog what’s it l;ike to be brain dead?
“Stand Strong”<——nic switch
William Kristol<—–insane kook : /~
Ken said it right “The Arabs and Africans have been killing each other for centuries and always will and we are not going to stop it.”
It’s ridiculous to think that we are the “Worlds Police Force”. In hind sight we should have gotten involved in WW1 and WWII sooner but still, that’s hind site which is always 20/20.
We shouldn’t be involving our own troops in ANYTHING anymore unless it directly threatens us. If it’s anything else like a Balkans, Somalia, and Rwanda we should only commit troops under the UN. That’s what its there for.
I do not know stand strong, but if I ever vote for George Walker Bush again I will let you know.Now for a question for you, if the United States has the nuclear might to destroy the world five times over.How many world’s are there to destroy?
Not Enough for GW!
Tony, good one.
Bullying the world into submission sounds great if you have the mind of a 5th grader. That about sums up Kristol and his fellow neocons, all of their expensive educations and corporate backing notwithstanding.
They have zero credibility. None. Their fantastical schemes to ‘remake’ the Middle East by ‘regime change’ in Iraq (read: ‘occupy and extract’) took zero account of the history or internal dynamics of the country. Yet despite the failures that resulted from imposing ‘democracy’ from the barrel of a gun, Kristol and his well-heeled henchmen want to take their ‘might makes right’ show on the road.
It’s incredible to me, really, how shills like Kristol, who were COMPLETELY WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING pertaining to Iraq, are still the ones getting a hearing. But what’s still more incredible is how this doesn’t seem to be incredible to the well-placed opinion makers within DC’s Ivory Beltway.
How, precisely, does he think that more digging (read: ‘use of force’) gets us out of the whole that we’ve created by the act of digging (read: ‘using force’)?
Just to be clear: CF is no pacifist. He supported UN action in Kosovo, and will never forgive Bill Clinton for keep US boots off the ground and allowing the Rwandan genocide. But CF disapproves of every colonial or imperialistic war. The very type that seem to be Viagra for Kristol, Bush, and Cheney–none of whom has ever heard a shot fired in anger.
Wait; my bad. Forgot that Cheney shot that dude.
(Oh, and did anybody see “Family Guy” the other night, with Dick Cheney as the Wal-Mart greeter? “Go f*ck yourself. Go f*ck yourself. Go f*ck yourself.”)
Thanks CF…
I didnt see that Family Guy… I’m going to go google it and see if i can download it. If i can find it, ill post it.
“unwilling or unable to draw the sword on behalf of justice.”
If we drew the sword “on behalf of justice,” we’d have to ram it through our own bowels.
After the old Soviet Union and what was left of the British Empire, the United States in the past 50 years has been one of the leading SPONSORS of state sponsored terrorism.
Every terrorist act coming out of the Middle East–the Embassy hostages in Iraq in ‘79, the bombing of the marine barracks in ‘83 in Lebanon have been in direct response to the US overthrowing democratically elected governments.
The Al Qaeda attacks starting in ‘93 were a direct result of stationing US troops in the “land of the two holies” (Saudi Arabia). We promised the ulema (Muslim elders) the troops would not remain after the Iraq-Kuwait war in ‘91. But then Bush I and Sec’ry of Defense Cheney lied and just left them there.
Latin America has even more cause to hate us than the Middle East after the string of dictators we’ve imposed on them and continue to support and prop up.
We got ZERO support from Latin America on our latest war. Why? Because they know too well what “the sword of justice” in US hands really means: the sword of imperial slavery–the sword of imposing the law of the big multi-national to rape and pillage.
There are times where pre-emptive action makes sense. That is especially true where we might be a catalyst using other (often indigenous) forces. For example, in Bosnia we could have provided the government in Sarajevo with a minimal amount of air/logistics support and some arms and they would have dealt with the invading Serbian army. Tanks and artillary make easy targets for a Warthog. The fighting on the ground would be the responsibility of the Bosnians.
Similar in Darfur – air/logistics in support of AU and European ‘boots on the ground’. Again, Janjaweed assets would be very vulnerable to our air superiority.
I met a flight crew once who were very frustrated that they were not allowed to help the Kurds. They told me their risk would be minimal against Saddam’s helicopters; they would have cleared those and also his heavy equipment quickly. Then, on the ground, the Kurds were ready to act.
The key here is leverage. “Other people’s boots” coupled with our technology.
This is an interesting question. In some instances, I’d say yes a pre-emptive strike may be a necessity. However, I think many of our problems could lie in the fact of how we actually treat other countries.
Perhaps instead of playing a chess match with real governments we should back off, let their countries people decide what they want, and let well enough alone.
Why is it we have to be the ones who:1. Enforce no weapons of mass destruction(granted we find out were lied to but even if we weren’t, why?)
2. Stop a dictator from committing mass genocide?
3. What ever other reasons we might have here.
Granted with step 2, I’d be more apt to listen to want to stop it, but step one would really need to be a credible threat against us.
Ben, this time I think may agree with you here. If we are going to help another country, then use their ground forces coupled with some of our own if needed, and our technology and take care of threats but only if we are asked to do so.
Anyway, my two cents worth.
“Think the Bush administration has been too quick to use military force? William Kristol argues otherwise in a provocative Time essay”
Kristol sounds like my neighbors out here. All that’s needed to fix whatever’s broken is just a bigger hammer….
ksfarmgrrl,
When is a hammer not a hammer? Or, is it really the neocon ‘hammer’ that this is really about?
Kristol is an idiot. Watch him some time on the Fox and F*ckers Show. The man is a loon. He puts on a fake smile while advocating more and more war. I am personally convinced that these Neomorons have a world domination complex a la Hitler in 1933.
These American Century crazies (and remember they include JEB) would have the US Armed Forces attack every country that raised a hand in protest of American actions throughout the world.
The objective of the American Century folks is nothing less than a desire for complete American domination of the world. Before we allow them to destroy the world, let’s remember that all of the other attempts to conquer the world were all eventually disasterous failures.
WSClark,
Or not so eventually. ‘Thousand-year reichs’ tend to fall well short of their stated thousand-year goal.
Interesting that the usual Bush-supporting WeBloggers are pretty quiet on this one…
Danny–
I agree.
And furthermore, how can we complain about WMD’s when again we’re the biggest offenders?
Remember the anthrax attacks that were all directed at Bush enemies (funny coincidence, that)?
Can there be anyone so naive as to think that the weaponized anthrax came from withing our own government–you know, the one that CLAIMS we have no biological or chemical weapons.
Of course the no chemical weapons claim has already been fully debunked as a damned lie by the US military’s use of white phosphorous incendiary bombs in Iraq.
Like napalm but more lethal. Once it’s on you, it burns right to the bone–there’s nothing you can do to stop it.
A slow, horrible, agonizing death by a piece of white hot unquenchable hell-fire no bigger than a pencil eraser.
And we used it on little kids.
The united states should only use force to protect the united states and nobody or nothing else. We were not appointed by God to police to world. That is the job of the UN and if the UN decides to stop genocide in Darfur as it did in Bosnia, then fine, we can contribute to a UN force to do that but the USA should never ever go to war alone unless it is directly related to the security of the USA and its peoples.
More pre-emptive strikes! More pre-emptive strikes! That’s the Ticket!
Have you ever noticed how some wingnuts have really cool and tough handles like ‘Stand Strong” “BeProudAmerica” “ProudMan” and other such horseshit names, which immediately betray their mindless rah-rah alpha-(more like Epsilon-)male attitude?
mbrgtcdwf ayvqibklr uncp lfpvsrgb eifrz vezhncxir utijeaq