Clarification

In linking a post of mine Jules Crittenden suggests:

Dan Riehl thinks our differences, our choices and the consequences are not so dire as I've painted them. We'll muddle through somehow.

I understand how he gets to that conclusion; however, it's more complex than that. I do think the consequences of how Iraq and Iran are resolved are dire. Unfortunately, as much as I'd like to see boldness in addressing them, I simply don't think it is in the cards. Nor do I think it's game over if we don't act boldly right now.

I believe the window for resolution is longer than some believe and there is also reason to see some light - IE Abbas in Palestine trying very much to move the Palestinians forward in a positive way.

The Middle East is very much a chess game right now. I think Bush understands that and won't be trying to make it a football game by going for a Hail Mary pass. Based upon decisions I have seen from him, I think it more likely that he'll incrementally up our efforts.

In some ways, I hope I'm wrong. But other than the initial launching of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, what bold military initiatives have we seen from Bush? He has been muddling through this all along and I expect him to basically stay the course, looking to rely more on America's patience, than military strength.

Ultimately, the real reason for my thinking is that I have come to not expect a great deal from Bush. But look at what Jules said:

More likely, a dispirited people, our army broken by defeat, we'll just wait to see who emerges as the new world power. It will be a while before there is one, and much longer before there is one we would care to live under. I predict a dark age, in which brutal second-rate powers such as Russia, China, Iran and North Korea do what they choose to whom they choose without restraint. An age of modern warlords, with no over-arching, feared power to keep them in check. We can watch the sick man that is Europe slowly succumb. We can watch small free nations try to fend for themselves. We can await the inevitable nuclear crisis.

That's too pessimistic by half. America's advantage in the world isn't going to disappear over night. And if we are going to win the global war on terror, we simply cannot do it alone. Ethiopia has stood up in Somalia, NATO is doing so in Afghanistan. This war is a generational war likely to outlast most of our lifetimes. And pronouncing it lost simply because of Iraq is something I'm not prepared to do.

America may be in a place as she was circa 1938 - 1940. But just five years later, the Axis powers were defeated and freedom won. Long term, I foresee a similar conclusion to current events.

Comments

[Purple Avenger]

Incremental is fine when you have the luxury of time. We're on a 2-year "shot clock" right now though.

My confidence in a democrat president's continuing any incrementalism in 08' is near zero. IOW - I take the democrats statements and apparent intentions at face value.

[Dan Riehl]

PA - I agree we are headed for dangerous times. Just not the end times for America. I have, sadly, often said it'll take at least one more major attack before America wakes up to what she faces. Nothing has happened to make me change my view and I expect one day we will see such an attack. Hopefully then all of our resources will turn to fighting a war we must win.

America is a fat, lazy nation. But that doesn't mean she is incapable of waking up and getting back into shape.

[Doc]

I agree; it will take a major attack (i.e. nuke, significant chem or bio, etc), with every reason to assume it is al q or someone like them to blame, before we are willing to do what it takes to actually make our children significantly safer. Will we have the will even then? I wonder. So many of our 'best minds' seem blind to the fact that Islam is an inherently dangerous 'faith', that a Muslim can forswear violence against 'infidels' only in violation of clear tenets in the Koran. What's the definition of a 'moderate Muslim'? He only wants to kill Israelis; the rest of us he'll settle for enslaving. We allow the continued spread of Islam in our nation at our peril. It's all ready too late in many other nations. What will we do when the military power of Russia and France is in the hands of Muslims, as they are destined to be within our lifetime? Why won't any of our leaders even begin to address what we will do as a nation if we are attacked in such a way?

[allen]

Dan, the reason Ethiopia smoked the ICU was because of the Bush policy. The U.S. built up their military and provided them with satellite photos(among other support as well)which enabled the Ethiopians to roll over the african taliban. The Al Qaeda backed horse in the Phillipines, Abu Sayef, has been getting routed as well and, yes, we have been training them as well. Same in Colombia against the FARC guerillas. Kashmir has been relatively quiet during the Bush admin. as compared to the Clinton presidency when India and Pakistan were as close as ever in going to war over Kashmir. The Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Moammar Qhaddafi and A.Q. Khan are TOAST. The former leader of the Al Qaeda backed group from Algeria, the GSPC, and 100 hundred of his followers recently gave it up. I'm sorry Dan but our military is not broken, tired or burned out. On the contrary, they are in high spirits and are very positive because they know that we have been dominating our enemies across every inch of the globe(Every Al Qaeda communication we have intercepted in the last 5 years says the same thing: We, Al Qaeda, are getting crushed). What will you say when Bush brilliantly takes down the mullahs of Iran this year?

[Dan Riehl]

I'm sorry Dan but our military is not broken

Uh, I never said it was, I was quoting from Jules on that issue. And as I said in the post of mine I linked, we are creating allies and making gains in many places because of the Bush policy. But it is still a policy based to a good degree on patience and not immediate overwhelming force.

[Purple Avenger]

"I'm sorry Dan but our military is not broken"

Give a democrat president in 08' four years and it will be ;->

[China Law Blog]

I agree with much of what you are saying, but holding Abbas up as some sort of good sign just causes my fear to increase. Abbas only looks reasonable in comparision to everyone else around him.

[Phoenix]

Do what Bush has wanted to do all along. Set up a democracy in the middle of that mess, establish a 'temporary' base there - as we have in many other countries - and watch what happens. A democratic, capitalist Iraq is our best weapon in the war on terror.

Just think when we start out-sourcing our tech work to Iraq. They'll all get rich and buy Mercedes and all those poor people in the surrounding countries will start cussing their mullahs. Perfect. Maybe those perpetual-street-rally-people in Palestine will stop and wonder...'Hey, I want some of that booty.'

Doc, I can't see an Islamic rule in Russia. Those Russkis will kill for their vodka.

[longtom]

all brave talk, but none of you have ever been in combat. this isn't the movie channel. you lost in Iraq and now Bush will have you lose even more when he attacks Iran.....................

[longtom]

I agree with much of what you are saying, but holding Abbas up as some sort of good sign just causes my fear to increase. Abbas only looks reasonable in comparision to everyone else around him.

Posted by: China Law Blog | Sunday, January 07, 2007 at 07:43 PM

and he is on his way out, with a little more american support he will wind up living in Detroit.