The [other] Bush Doctrine

[boxcar]

While Bush may enjoy wide support in the polls (which incidentally is on the decline, and I believe it will continue to slide), a large number of Repubs are quite disguntled about how Bush has man[handled] his own domestic agenda. In short, he has allowed the DemRats to so badly dilute his policies that all the bills he has signed into law now have the look and feel of Democratic legislation. Unlike Clinton, who vetoed more bills than anyone would care to count during his two terms, Bush appears to be the kind of unprincipled politician who never likes to say "no" to a situation that calls for "bipartisanship" by comprimising _away_ most of his policies. Generally speaking, being wobbly-kneed when it comes to domestic issues is one thing because our national security usually isn't at risk (however his borders policy with the Nat'l Guard and his ill-conceived amnesty bill for illegal aliens are certainly two valid exceptions); but poor leadership in the international arena is quite another because sending the wrong signals to the wrong nations could lead to unintended dire consequences.

If I were the leader of Taiwan right now, I would seriously be thinking about how to quickly become the 8th offical nuclear power in the world in order to deter mainland China from crushing me into dust particles some day. After seeing how the Bush administration waffles back and forth with Israel at the ebb and flow of every political tide, my confidence in the U.S. would at best be shaky. (I suppose, though, Israel has one thing to be thankful for because most political pundits believe that Israel is already a nuclear power, even though she has consistently denied this. I just hope the pundits are are calling the right shots on this one for Israel's sake!)

Soon after the Passover Massacre, Bush and Powell voiced support for Israel and, of course, accompanied with the usual condemnation rhetoric for Palestinian terrorism. But then when Israel sent its tanks into Ramallah and surrounded Arafat's headquaters, the U.S. joins in with that lustrious neo-communistic organization known as the U.N. and casts its vote with the Nat'l Security Council demanding that Israel withdraw its tanks from the West Bank. Such EQUIVOCAL support the U.S. has for Israel! The Bush Admin. has taken hypocrisy to a new all-time low!

It's perfectly okay for the U.S. to defend itself from future terrorist attacks by vigorously prosecuting a war on terrorism, including on governments who support terrorism, but when the tiny nation of Israel, who is literally surrounded by hundreds of millions of its Arab enemies, does the same, the U.S. tells Sharon to use "restraint" and "think about consequences", etc.

And how long has the U.S., with respect to the Mideast Crisis, been acting as a dog chasing its tail? The Bush Administration isn't the only one who is deluded. You would think that with one administration after another having for all these years spewed forth our inane and ineffective peace rhetoric like a broken record, that someone would have noticed by now that our diplomatic approach isn't working, has never worked, and will never work!

But what makes this particular time in history so critically important for the U.S. and Israel is that the terrorists are actually WINNING their war. They are the ones making all the gains! (Even in our second phase of the war in Afghanistan, we're really not doing all that swell, since far more of the enemy is being allowed to escape than what we're killing or capturing!) Like animals, the terrorists "smell" _fear_ in America's Mideast policy, and this has only emboldened the Palestinian terrorists.

Bush needs to find courage that, perhaps, he didn't even think he owned if he's truly concerned about preserving our freedom in this country and Israel's security. He needs to embark on a Mideast policy that is totally consistent with the Doctrine on Terrorism that he so clearly laid out for Americans in his last State of the Union message.

The next thing he has to do is wake up and smell the coffee. He needs to take count of "all" his true friends in the Middle East. That shouldn't take him very long since the U.S. has only one ally there -- Israel. I believe that ALL the other governments in that region (maybe with the exception of Turkey) are America's unoffical enemies. Yes, they say nice things to our faces in diplomatic meetings, but behind our backs they conspire and plot and plan about how one day they can put the knife in our back! Therefore, once and for all, the Bush Admin. need not worry about upsetting or offending our friends in the region because these "friends" are only a figment of
of the Administration's imagination.

If Bush were ever to get past this mythical friends hurdle, he'd be able to embark on a fresh, new diplomatic path -- one that I believe would be very effective. He'd be able to finally formulate a Mideast policy that would be _consistent_ with his own Doctrine on Terrorism.

The first thing I would do (if I were Bush) is demand that Arafat put an immediate end to all terrorist activities. It matters not anymore if he's directly behind them (which I believe he is) or is indirectly behind them, or whether he can't or won't control the extremist elements. These would become mute points. The only thing that would matter is that Arafat is the HEAD of the Palestinians. Bush would warn Arafat in advance that his failure to control terrorism within a very short, stipulated period of time would result in the breaking off of diplomatic relations with the Palestinians until such time as they elect a NEW head or Arafat actually puts an end to terrorism! Believe me when I tell you that that kind of shot fired over Arafat's bow would be heard 'round the world!

(Remember: since virtually all Arab governments hate us anyway, and since most of them believe we're already heavily biased toward Israel, what more do we have to lose!?)

The next diplomatic step Bush should take is to try to convince the U.N. and all our European "allies" (such as they are) that it's in their best interests and in the interest of world peace that they, too, break off all diplomatic relations with any nation or political entity that harbors or supports terrorists, i.e. Arafat. We'd probably be able to get at least a few states to speak out and to cooperate with us. Even a small number would be cause for great concern for Arafat and his thugs.

Naturally, before Bush would make such a bold pronouncement to Arafat, we'd have a fleet of ships in the Mediterranean and in the Persian Gulf, which would serve as a warning and deterrent against an Arab oil embargo -- something I don't believe the Arabs would risk anyway.

Assuming Arafat doesn't curb his terrorist friends, the next thing Bush should adivse Sharon to do is to build a "buffer zone" between Isreal and the West Bank. If the Palestinians retaliate, then Israel should offically declare war on the Palestinians. No doubt many civilian lives would be lost -- the vast majority of them on the Palestinian side without doubt. But nonetheless Israel has a right to protect herself, and the RESPONSIBILITY for all Palestinian lives lost would fall squarely on the Palestinians' elected leader's head. As the old adage goes, "One bad apple can ruin the entire barrel." There's an awful lot of truth to that.

I cannot understand for the life of me where it written that just because some state or political entity elected its leaders that the U.S., or any other country for that matter, has some kind of moral or legal obligation to carry on diplomatic relations with any political entity that has gone bad -- that is a threat to world security!

Meanwhile, because the Arab world understands and respects power and force, I don't believe a gazillion Arabs would rise up against Isreal. To the contrary. The Arab leaders would quietly go about their business -- no doubt mumbling to themselves, but they would know they're no match for the U.S. or Israel!

It has not escaped my notice this past week how many political pundits have actually entertained the feasibility of all "all out war" between Israel and the Palestinians. (One pundit actually used the "N" word, too!) The very conservative and reserved Tony Snow on Fox News today raised this very issue with one succinct, pithy question that went along these lines -- to paraphrase:

Have there ever been _successful_ and _lasting_ peace negotiations without one party being a WINNER of a war?

As stated previously, I can't think of any. And it seems that other people are starting to realize this, also.

In closing, Bush himself needs to find his own moral compass. He needs to come to the realization that if by his Mideast policies this country is perceived as being weak, undecisive and equivocal, he is putting our country at a great security risk because our enemies will swarm upon us and Israel as the locusts did upon ancient Egypt. Bush is playing a very, very dangerous diplomatic game. Someone really needs to remind him of this in short order.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

Although Clinton vetoed a lot we got almost all of the "Contract For America" by him and what does he do? Why he takes all the credit, of course. As long as Bush meets the Dems halfway he has successfully taken away their agenda and clearing the way for us to have the clear majority in Congess that we, yes, us, Repubs, need to get more tax reform and to get this countries "moral compass" restored. I can't fully disagree with you, but I hope what I just stated is truly what's going on.

[boxcar]

The problem, Lefty, is that Bush doesn't understand what a _mutual_ comprimise means. He hasn't met the Dems halfway at all -- he's met them around 75% of the way, as the Dems have succeeded in removing the teeth from _all_ of Bush's domestic policies. If I had time, I'd enumerate them all for you, but I don't.
Furthermore, I'm in no mood after listening to Bush's drivel today regarding Arafat. Bush sickens me. He told the world that he doesn't consider Arafat to be a terrorist. That the situation with Arafat and the Al-Queda is compltely different. That Arafat "agreed" to the Mitchell and Tenet plans, etc., etc. etc. Where has Bush been keeping his head all these years -- or for that matter for the last 18 months!?

What a gutless, spineless wimp we have for a president. I'm ashamed to call him "my president". I shudder to think about the path, upon which hypocritical cowardly doubletalker could be leading us.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

Well, I don't think he's a wimp at all and knows he has to "tread" most carefully in the Middle East. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. How far along do you think we would be if Gore was Prez? Now there's an, uh, Alpha Male?

[boxcar]

Well, Lefty, if treading "most carefully" means he has to have one standard for terrorism for the U.S., while holding Israel to an entirely different one, then I want no part of him. I'd have more respect for him if he just came right out in full support of the terroristic strategy the Palestinians are employing against Israel. Hell, why not just ship arms to the Palestinians and tell them to drive Israel into the sea and be done with it!? Then he wouldn't have worry about treading carefully anymore, would he?

He is just like his daddy -- a fence straddler who stands for everything, which means he stands for nothing at all.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

After Colin Powell's interview with Fox News this A.M., it is now crystal clear that the U.S. fully intends to sell out Israel. After parroting Bush's "reasons" for why Arafat isn't a terrorist, he stated later in the interview that the Saudi "peace plan" was a "good" one. This view represents a big upgrade from earlier comments by Bush and other senior Admin. officials, who called the Saudi plan merely a "vision" for Mideaset peace.

So, now what we have here is a three ring circus with all three "partners" for Mideast peace talking past one another, since it isn't likely at all that Israel would ever withdraw to its pre-1967 borders. Nor is it likely that Israel would ever agree to a "right to return" conditions for Palestinians.

It's very obvious to me that the Bush Admin. is grasping for straws, hoping against all hope that some kind of settlement can be reached before Israel's next elections, whereby the current polls indicate that Netanyahu would again be elected P.M. Bush knows fully well that if this were to happen, there would be big changes in the Palestinian landscape, since Netanyahu is a strong, principled leader and not an equivocator.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

I agree about Netinyahu that's why Clinton helped get him outta there. I agree Israel has the right to defend itself just as we do but the middle east is one "sticky wicket" as we have to be most careful not to burn our bridges with the rest of the arab world. I don't envy the prez at all and have faith in him. I know you don't and that's your right. A great country, eh?

[boxcar]

Okay, Lefy, you say we have to be careful to not "burn our bridges" with the Arab world. Name one Arab country over there, other than Turkey, who is _truly_ our ally -- truly our friend. Have you read or listened to Kuwait's sentiments toward the U.S. lately -- the country we saved from Iraq less than 10 years ago!?

Even Pakistan, I don't fully trust. They're supporting us because, I believe, because they don't want to be on the losing side on our war on terrorism.

Furthermore, I don't think the U.S. would start WW111 if we broke off diplomatic relations with Arafat. The rest, then, would basically be up to Israel, as I think we could keep out of any military conflict that might ensue afterwards since Israel is capable of fighting its own battles -- somethng the Arab world knows all too well.

A quick history lesson: Military action has been taken against Israel by Arabs in 1948, in '56, in '67 and in '73. Not once have the Arabs come even close to succeeding.

And to change the subject for a moment -- did I not write that Bush must be extremely careful to NOT send the WRONG signals to the world with his Mideast diplomatic policies -- particularly those pertaining to the Palestinians. I said our enemies are like beasts, who once they smell fear, would "swarm upon us..." Well, I find it more than interesting that N. Korea at this _particular time_ now wants to suddenly reopen talks with the U.S. And who do you think would be the primary topic of those talks? S. Korea, perhaps?
Is it No. Korea's strategy now to overload Bush's plate, hoping to get him to waffle on U.S. policy regarding our ally S. Korea?

Every single indication is that the U.S. is ready, willing and able to sell out Israel for our own interests. This was made crystal clear yesterday when Powell said the Saudi plan was a "good peace plan". Well, if we're ready to sell out one of our strongest and staunchest friends we have on this planet, why would N. Korea not think we could be pressured to do the same thing with S. Korea?

I think it's a huge mistake, Lefy, to think for a moment that the Bush Admin. will gain the respect of our enemies by setting different standards for an ally than what the U.S. itself subscribes to, by employing diplomatic doublespeak, and by equivocating on any given apsect of the Mideast crisis from one day to the next. This kind of diplomatic strategy will do only one thing: betray our WEAKNESS. What our enemies would respect and FEAR, however, is a strong, principled, unwavering, and consistent resolve with respect to our policy on terrorism.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

What's with Kuwaite, damn I don't know. What's with these people altogether; most puzzling. It's a "mess" over there; and Bush has got to ne careful. Hey, i'm with you, i'd like for U.S. to align with Israel and rollover thewhole damn MidEast. But they won't listen to me. So I can't fully disagree with you that's for sure, but sure glad Bush has these probs to solve and not Al Gore. That's about all I can say as I don't know enough to say anymore.
Let us pray.

[boxcar]

With this Mideast Crisis, I don't believe Gore would be handling it much differently, frankly.

From what I heard this afternoon, our "fearless leader" appears to caving to pressure from around the world. From what was reported by third parties, Powell might now go to the hot spot next week and try to have Israel and the Palestinians resume negotiations, APART from any ceasfire agreement. (Desparation has set in.)
If this is true, this would represent another major shift in policy.

Boxcar

[Lindsay]

Thanks for starting this very interesting string, Boxcar. I figure I might as well get my feet wet in an "off topic" string.

A few minor corrections to what you wrote: Turkey and Pakistan are not Arab states; I have heard Israeli officials effectively acknowledge that Israel has nuclear weapons; what was going on at Dimona was not much of a secret; diplomacy worked with Egypt and Israel; Israeli militias were fighting and taking land before the Arab states joined the 1948 war; Egypt and Syria certainly DID come close to succeeding in the Yom Kippur War; emergency shipments of American arms helped to avert a catastrophe; Prime Minister Begin called the Six-Day War Israel's choice; when listing the wars, you left out Israel's disastrous 1982 invasion of Lebanon, which included house-to-house fighting between Israelis and the PLO and is thus possibly the best analogy to today; Israel recently pulled out of Lebanon, and the invasion and subsequent war of attrition is widely considered to be a huge mistake for Israel.

I share your hatred of terrorists, but I believe your history lessons are a tad too black and white, not to mention selective. I would be interested in hearing your views on Irgun, the Stern Gang, the Israeli attack on the "Liberty," the attack on the King David Hotel, Sharon's responsibility for the Sabra and Shatila massacres, whether Jonathan Pollard sickens you as much as President Bush does, Israeli strangulation of the Palestinian economy, Israeli relations with apartheid South Africa and fascist Latin American nations, and Israeli reserves who are calling the Israeli occupation immoral. It is my belief that Israel's occupation is coming at the price of her soul.

I realize these questions don't lend themselves to the types of ten-second answers we get on the Fox News Channel, but I see that as a plus. Please feel free to ask me to document any of my statements.

Your posts are always enjoyable, Boxcar. My best wishes to you.

[Lindsay]

Silly me. I forgot to ask you how you apportion blame for the 1956 war.

[boxcar]

Lindsay, you're correct about what you say about Turkey and Pakistan. They are Muslim states.

Time won't permit a series of Mideast history lessons, but suffice it to say that I agree that Israel isn't an angel in this conflict. However, when Palestinians talk about "Israeli occupation", they're referring specifically to lands acquired by Israel in the 6-day '67 war (possibly the shortest "war" in history) when Israel had its back almost literally against the Mediterrean -- with Arab forces attacking from 3 sides. Since Israel was _defending _ itself in that war, WON the war, and in the process acquired as spoils of war some previously held Palestinian land, it is entirely disingenious for the Palestinians, the Europeans, etc. to characterize the West Bank, Gaza, etc. as lands "occupied" by Isreal.

Moreover, I don't believe for a moment that this long conflict over there really has much to do with land. There is deep hatred on both sides that is rooted in the parties' repsective religious beliefs and traditions. However, I will say this about Israel: Israel has, historically, been willing to make peace with any Arab country who wanted the same, as evidenced by Egypt and Jordan. The big problem over there is that the Arab extremeists (and there are plenty of them) DON'T want peace. What they want is another Jewish holacust. (Someone field reporter from Fox News recently interviewed a leader from one of the terrorist orgainizations, and in that interview the terrorist made it abundantly clear that Israel must go -- even out of Israel -- even if a peace deal was reached! He want on to say that Israel "invaded" the land in '48, and has no historcal roots to the land, etc. This is precisely why I firmly believe (as other political analysts and pundits are) that the only pathway to true, lasting peace is indeed another all out war whereby one foe will so demoralize the other, thereby breaking the will of the defeated enemy to fight any longer -- at which point that party will be ready to seriously talk about peace. Otherwise, this conflict will continue indefintely, since it's IMPOSSIBLE for two enemies to have peace when one party doesn't want it.

Do I support what is going on right now in the West Bank? You bet! Israel is simply doing what Arafat has consistently refused to do, i.e. clean out the terrorists. Israel's activity over there is in RESPONSE to ongoing Palestinian terrorism.

Boxcar

[Lindsay]

Boxcar,

Israel struck the first blow in the Six-Day War, destroying much of Egypt's air force while it was on the ground. Israel also struck Syria (Golan Heights) first. At the time, the West Bank was run by Jordan's King Hussein. He had an alliance with Egypt, and after Israel attacked Egypt, Hussein launched a tepid attack on Israel. I thought this was common knowledge.

Menachem Begin: "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

Ezer Weizman, commander of the Israeli air force: The Israeli attack on Egypt, Syria, and Jordan was justified so that Israel could "exist according to the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies."

Yitzhak Rabin: "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it."

A few other things:

You couldn't think of any lasting peace agreements in the absence of total victory by one side: War of 1812. Iran-Iraq War. Israeli-Egypt Wars. Nicaragua Contra War. Civil War in El Salvador. I could go on and on.

The 1969 Soccer War between El Salvador and Honduras was as short as the Six-Day War.

The Israelis respond to Palestinian terrorism. You are correct. But the Palestinians respond to the continuing brutal, suffocating occupation. And anyone who thinks they will quit is mistaken. The 35-year Israeli occupation has produced some of the toughest people on earth. It was a side effect that Israel didn't expect.

I think you went a bit overboard when you called President Bush a sickening coward and a spineless wimp. The Middle East is a complicated place. You are acknowledging this when you decline to discuss the events I listed in my first and second reply. I will be happy to discuss them in depth in the future--the next time this subject comes up again, no doubt.

I have enjoyed the conversation, Boxcar. Thank you.

[Tom]

To me, some tings are so ovious ......

1. Kill Arafat. Now.
2. Kill everyone in the room with him. Now.
3. Take out Iraq - if we have to, nuke Bagdad.
4. Any other nations want to bitch about it, cut off all aid. Every cent. And the same to any other country that sides with them.
5. Continue to "clean out" Palestine. If they want it to stop, let them hand over the terroists, otherwise, there are no innocent palestinians.
6. Make sure that every nation in the world knows that if they want our money, then they damn well better shut up and get on their backs, so to speak. If they take our cash, then they have no right to criticize us. The reason they need our foreign aid is they cannot take care of themselves, for whatever reasons, they are failures and can't cut it. They need the help of a superior nation - USA - to carry them. OK, no problem, but I don't like whores that talk back. Take the cash and shut up. You want an opinion, then pay for it - feed yourselves and speak all you want.
7. Tell Detroit no more gas powered car as of 2004. If Ford, GM and Chrysler can't do it, let them go under and give support to the new companies that will take their places. We have to get out from under our need for oil from this whole worthless armpit of the world. It damn well can be done by then.

But of course, I could always be wrong.