MaxedOutMama
Friday, October 29, 2004
Beldar & Krauthammer & Me
Beldar flags Krauthammer's setdown of Kerry's "retroactive genius" regarding the Afghanistan adventure. One thing I don't question is that there are two valid opinions on what we're doing in Iraq. I can't, because one of my brothers is something of a military historian and he has concerns about Iraq. (He's voting for Bush, though.)
But what I liked so much about both Beldar's and Krauthammer's comments is that they're true. Bush's decisions on the War On Terror have been radical and courageous, and the US (or its media) does suffer from a lack of historical perspective and an incredibly short attention span.
The question is really whether the US public has an incredibly short attention span, or whether that syndrome is largely confined to the media. I suspect the media is far worse off in this respect than the American public. The citzenry of the US liked it when Reagan referred to the Soviet Union as an evil empire and said that the Berlin wall must come down; the media responded by designating Reagan as a cowboy. The citizenry reelected Reagan when media coverage of his policies was overwhelmingly negative.
What, IMO, the American citizenry intuitively grasps about that mindset (which Kerry shares) is that behind the rhetoric of terrorism being a nuisance lies the philosophy that it's a foe that can't be destroyed, only endured. What Bush grasps about the mindset of the American public is that the American citizenry has no intention of enduring it - it wants that foe destroyed, in the same way the genocidal European regimes of the second World War were destroyed and gave birth to genuinely democratic regimes that don't murder their own populations.
The IMF is projecting growth in the Iraq economy of over 50% in 2004, 17% in 2005, and 10% annually for 2006 through 2009. Arabs and Arabists will take note of this. There is a good reason why the attacks on the pipelines in Iraq have been unremitting - the terrorists are fighting desperately to prevent Iraq from prospering. They fear the effect on their cause, and rightfully so.
Bush may be something of a riverboat gambler, but at least he's planning to win most the hands and walk away with the heaviest pockets at the end of the night. Kerry's plan is to whine around the European capitals and the UN bemoaning our plight and earnestly asking for assistance. Why should these other countries care more for our welfare than their own?
If we are too afraid to show that this war can be won, why should these other countries attempt to prove it on our behalf? We're the country with the target painted on its back, and that is a very, very good thing for France and Germany, who are suffering economically. It's worth repeating - the IMF's numbers show the best world economy in 30 years, but the European Union is lagging. Scroll down and read the numbers here. Sub-Saharan Africa is growing at a rate more than 2% above the EU. China's big problem is winching its 9% growth rate down to something more sustainable, although it's my guess that rate is sustainable. Asia's doing well. Now Bush wants to take Iraq and make it a modern democratic state that produces instead of being a client consumer for France and Germany.
It's no wonder the Western Europeans are feeling a bit jaundiced at these developments. Bush could not let the UN in to run Iraq after we invaded, because we would simply have seen a repetition of the Oil For Food scandal, in which vested monetary interests made highly profitable deals with top echelon of the government in Iraq. The net result would have to suppress the economic development in Iraq. We need that economic explosion as an example to the world. The reason why Kerry said in his nomination speech that he would not pull American troops out of Europe (mostly Germany) is that the Europeans desperately want those troops to stay because they contribute to their economy. This is an economic issue - there is no pressing military reason for our troops to be there any more.
Bush's policies favor the developing world. Kerry's policies favor Western Europe, and all Chirac's proclamations of "destabilizing the world" essentially add up to a protest against this fact. It's not the world Chirac is worrying about - it's France. Bush is worrying about the US, but in order to protect the US he has to have functional economies and governments that can't be bribed by the terrorists.
Trackback
But what I liked so much about both Beldar's and Krauthammer's comments is that they're true. Bush's decisions on the War On Terror have been radical and courageous, and the US (or its media) does suffer from a lack of historical perspective and an incredibly short attention span.
The question is really whether the US public has an incredibly short attention span, or whether that syndrome is largely confined to the media. I suspect the media is far worse off in this respect than the American public. The citzenry of the US liked it when Reagan referred to the Soviet Union as an evil empire and said that the Berlin wall must come down; the media responded by designating Reagan as a cowboy. The citizenry reelected Reagan when media coverage of his policies was overwhelmingly negative.
What, IMO, the American citizenry intuitively grasps about that mindset (which Kerry shares) is that behind the rhetoric of terrorism being a nuisance lies the philosophy that it's a foe that can't be destroyed, only endured. What Bush grasps about the mindset of the American public is that the American citizenry has no intention of enduring it - it wants that foe destroyed, in the same way the genocidal European regimes of the second World War were destroyed and gave birth to genuinely democratic regimes that don't murder their own populations.
The IMF is projecting growth in the Iraq economy of over 50% in 2004, 17% in 2005, and 10% annually for 2006 through 2009. Arabs and Arabists will take note of this. There is a good reason why the attacks on the pipelines in Iraq have been unremitting - the terrorists are fighting desperately to prevent Iraq from prospering. They fear the effect on their cause, and rightfully so.
Bush may be something of a riverboat gambler, but at least he's planning to win most the hands and walk away with the heaviest pockets at the end of the night. Kerry's plan is to whine around the European capitals and the UN bemoaning our plight and earnestly asking for assistance. Why should these other countries care more for our welfare than their own?
If we are too afraid to show that this war can be won, why should these other countries attempt to prove it on our behalf? We're the country with the target painted on its back, and that is a very, very good thing for France and Germany, who are suffering economically. It's worth repeating - the IMF's numbers show the best world economy in 30 years, but the European Union is lagging. Scroll down and read the numbers here. Sub-Saharan Africa is growing at a rate more than 2% above the EU. China's big problem is winching its 9% growth rate down to something more sustainable, although it's my guess that rate is sustainable. Asia's doing well. Now Bush wants to take Iraq and make it a modern democratic state that produces instead of being a client consumer for France and Germany.
It's no wonder the Western Europeans are feeling a bit jaundiced at these developments. Bush could not let the UN in to run Iraq after we invaded, because we would simply have seen a repetition of the Oil For Food scandal, in which vested monetary interests made highly profitable deals with top echelon of the government in Iraq. The net result would have to suppress the economic development in Iraq. We need that economic explosion as an example to the world. The reason why Kerry said in his nomination speech that he would not pull American troops out of Europe (mostly Germany) is that the Europeans desperately want those troops to stay because they contribute to their economy. This is an economic issue - there is no pressing military reason for our troops to be there any more.
Bush's policies favor the developing world. Kerry's policies favor Western Europe, and all Chirac's proclamations of "destabilizing the world" essentially add up to a protest against this fact. It's not the world Chirac is worrying about - it's France. Bush is worrying about the US, but in order to protect the US he has to have functional economies and governments that can't be bribed by the terrorists.
Trackback
