It is, of course, impossible to know for sure what dangers the United States will face in 2008. Russian aggressiveness, Chinese military investment, Pakistani instability, and the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are obvious threats that need to be addressed, but the security problems faced by the American government go far beyond the obvious. Danger lurks everywhere, and 2008 promises to challenge us with threats both new and old.
The Middle East, which has presented the United States with challenges to its security since the conclusion of World War II, is a good place to start. And with the security situation in Iraq growing better each day, no country in the Middle East demands more American attention right now than Iran.
Iran has done its very best to live up to its status as a charter member of President Bush's "axis of evil." While the recent National Intelligence Estimate surmised that Tehran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, no doubt in part because American troops were a little too close for comfort in neighboring Iraq, the U.S. intelligence community could only say with "moderate confidence" that the program had not been restarted. According to the 2007 Terrorist Threat to the Homeland document produced by the National Intelligence Council, the term "moderate confidence" is used in situations where "…the information is interpreted in various ways, we have alternative views, or the information is credible and plausible but not corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence" (emphasis mine). In other words, they're not really sure.
Even if Iran has not restarted its weapons program, though, the continued enrichment of uranium in open defiance of United Nations resolutions allows Tehran the ability to convert any civilian nuclear program to a weapons program with relatively little effort. Add to the nuclear issue continued meddling in Iraq, support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, pursuit of advanced military equipment from Russia, and aid to Hamas in the Palestinian territories, and you have an Iranian government that is acting recklessly and dangerously in a bid to become the dominant power in the Middle East. Iran poses a serious threat to the region, to the United States, and to the international community, and that threat cannot be discounted.
Iraq faces a critical year in 2008, one which will have serious implications for our national security. U.S. military forces will begin to draw down from the surge, creating the possibility of fragmentation into separate autonomous regions or even states if political progress is not realized soon. Political accommodation does not necessarily have to start in Baghdad, though, and signs are already emerging that indicate local and provincial governmental bodies are moving forward where the Maliki government in Baghdad remains stalled.
Iraqi security forces are gaining competence and experience with each passing day, and their ability to take over security operations from U.S. forces will be critical to maintaining a unified Iraq. As American troops necessarily begin drawing down, it will be absolutely essential that conditions are created that allow Iraq to move forward without the need for U.S. military forces to return. Diplomatic engagement with Iraq's neighbors will be critical as well to prevent meddling by regional players eager to take advantage of the U.S. departure.
Afghanistan will continue to be a problem for the United States, and it is possible that additional American military forces will be needed to boost a substandard NATO effort. Only a concerted offensive push against remaining Taliban and al-Qaeda elements, with an easing of national restrictions on troop employment, together with a substantive reconstruction strategy and counter-drug plan will save Afghanistan from the complete collapse it is now facing.
In South Asia, Pakistan is our most immediate concern. The assassination of former Prime Minister and head of the Pakistan People's Party Benazir Bhutto could lead political fragmentation, forcing President Pervez Musharraf to consolidate his hold on power to prevent all-out civil war. Parliamentary elections scheduled for January 8 will likely be postponed as Musharraf attempts to crack down on the rising extremist threat that Pakistan faces. So far it appears that Musharraf has the support of the military establishment, backing that will be critical to shoring up a weak government that could threaten India and cooperation with the United States in its war against terror in Afghanistan. Musharraf himself is not as important to the United States as is a stable Pakistani government that supports democratic principles and the rule of law.
China will become increasingly important to U.S. national security interests in 2008, and it will be critical to look past the façade China will put up for the Beijing Olympics and focus our efforts on continued abuses of human rights, increasing investment in military capabilities, and looming economic problems that could affect the United States. China is probably the greatest long-term threat to America, and the Taiwanese presidential election scheduled for March could severely strain relations if Taiwan continues to push for independence from the mainland. China could, and should, figure prominently in U.S. negotiations with North Korea. While some progress was made last year, North Korea will take advantage of U.S. commitments elsewhere to trade nuclear concessions over time for guarantees of regime survival. Newly elected South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak has expressed a desire to work with North Korea and to invest in the North's economy, no doubt an attempt to ease the massive financial burden that will accompany a North Korean implosion. Stability on the Korean peninsula is important to the United States, and desires for a nuclear-free North will have to be balanced against the consequences of governmental collapse.
In Russia, Vladimir Putin will leave the presidency and take up the role of prime minister. He is extremely popular with the citizenry, having moved Russia from the dark days following the collapse of the Soviet Union to a resurgent world power exerting its influence in the Caucasus, the Middle East, and in its diplomatic efforts at the United Nations. Russians once again see themselves as a great power, and Putin feels emboldened to continue his move away from democracy and toward autocratic control. Russia will in the coming year continue to oppose American efforts on its periphery, and will likely continue to back Serbia's claim to the Kosovo Province. A unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo could spell disaster for U.S.-Russian relations, and could lead to a new round of bloodshed in the region. Russian aggressiveness will continue, and Putin will fight the United States on ballistic missile defense, Iran, the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, and NATO expansion.
Africa will continue to present significant challenges for the United States, with continuing conflict in Somalia, Darfur (and across Sudan), the Congo, and Uganda. The establishment of a new U.S. military combatant command, AFRICOM, should facilitate more significant American engagement on the continent. Military training for African nations, maritime security, economic development, and counterterrorism will be crucial to the future of what is fast becoming a security nightmare for the rest of the world.
In Latin America, Hugo Chavez will continue to oppose all things American, and his pursuit of foreign military equipment presents a major security threat to the region and to the United States. There is the potential for an arms race in our backyard while criminal elements and drug traffickers threaten the Southern U.S. border. 2008 could be a pivotal year for Cuba, especially if Fidel Castro fails to survive the next several months. In the event of Castro's death, his brother Raul is likely to crack down on dissent in an effort to hold on to power, although his efforts will probably prove to be futile. The United States may well have to confront a governmental collapse in Cuba this year, and a strategy that involves key regional players will be critical for handling the demise of the Castros.
The next twelve months will be fraught with peril for the United States, and eyes around the world will be focused on the run-up to the November presidential election. Some states will take advantage of the uncertainty in America to jockey for position both regionally and internationally, while others will sit quietly and wait to see what happens. Foreign policy should be a determining factor in the election, and both our friends and our foes will be watching to see which candidate emerges victorious. This election is one of the most critical U.S. presidential contests in decades, and our choice will be critical to American standing in the world.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 33
Much misinformation within this article.
Iraq is nowhere near secure. They have no government whatsoever, except within the heavily guarded green zone. The Iraqi security forces and military will not venture past that safe haven, and for good reason. No progress will be made there as long as we're mired there.
We can likely hold off Sunni insurgents and the so-called "al Qaeda of Iraq," at least temporarily, by continuing to bribe them, and as long as the massive concrete barriers that we've constructed throughout Baghdad hold Sunni and Shiite apart from each other, we can expect that to remain at least marginally secure, as it would be called today. However, with neither group allowed to co-mingle at this point, it could hardly be called a grand, lasting success.
In the north, Turkey has taken it upon themselves to invade and occupy, so that they can attack the Kurds with impunity. Again, hardly what one would call a secure or optimal situation.
Btw, Iran disbanded it's nuclear weapons ambitions because of diplomatic efforts by Europe and China. Diplomacy works after all.
And, FYI, Iran is not barred from enriching uranium by the UN. They are in violation of nothing by doing so. They are barred from seeking to move to nuclear weapons production, not civilian power generation.
Afghanistan is on the cusp of being ovetaken by the Taliban and drug lords once again, as yet another arena of Bush foreign policy is shown to be the utter failure that it is. Opium production sets new records each year, and that cash goes directly into the hands of the Taliban and al Qaeda. Perfect.
Pakistan is literally one bullet away from being overtaken by Islamic extremists, and the assassination of Bhutto once again illustrates the utter failure of Bush foreign policy. By choosing to embrace a dictator instead of democracy in Pakistan, Bush has aligned himself with a government that has sheltered not only the Taliban but al Qaeda and Bin Laden himself. God only knows how much US funding has ended in the hands of al Qaeda as a result.
Hugo Chavez would have no problem with America if we hadn't tried to overthrow his democratically elected government, as a result of his decision to allow the people of Venezuela to share the profits from that nation's oil wealth, rather than to allow all of that wealth to be focused on the oil oligarchy elite.
People have predicted Cuba's collapse for nearly 50 years. I would venture to guess that they'll be wrong again.
You are correct about one thing here; this will be the most important presidential election that this country has had for decades, possibly in our history. If we choose incorrectly, our democracy will surely be lost, as the wrong person quickly assembles all of the abuse of power that BushCheneyCorp has amassed, and carries it further yet.
It will take a person of great stature and character to even begin to reverse the terrible damage that this administration has wrought on our nation.
"Iraq is nowhere near secure." No, but it's better than it was at this time last year.
"The Iraqi security forces and military will not venture past that safe haven, and for good reason." Actually, Iraqi security forces are operating throughout the country, not just in the green zone.
"In the north, Turkey has taken it upon themselves to invade and occupy, so that they can attack the Kurds with impunity." You mean in response to continued attacks on Turkey by the PKK, a terrorist group.
"Btw, Iran disbanded it's nuclear weapons ambitions because of diplomatic efforts by Europe and China. Diplomacy works after all." How simplistic. I'm sure the presence of more than 100,000 troops in a neighboring country and an American government that had already deposed two foreign governments in two years had nothing to do with it at all.
"And, FYI, Iran is not barred from enriching uranium by the UN. They are in violation of nothing by doing so. They are barred from seeking to move to nuclear weapons production, not civilian power generation." Yet they refuse to allow unfettered access to UN inspectors to ensure that move never takes place.
This link will take you to a UN press release that says "The Security Council...today demanded that Iran suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities...."
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8792.doc.htm
"Afghanistan is on the cusp of being ovetaken by the Taliban and drug lords once again, as yet another arena of Bush foreign policy is shown to be the utter failure that it is." Time for NATO to step up to the plate. They wanted the mission and they got the mission, but have yet to commit adequate resources to the task.
"Pakistan is literally one bullet away from being overtaken by Islamic extremists, and the assassination of Bhutto once again illustrates the utter failure of Bush foreign policy." The United States has throughout its history sided with dictators when necessary for U.S. strategic interests. Musharraf is not the key to Pakistan. The military is. His hold on that establishment weakens with each passing day as his replacement puts his own allies in place and moves Musharraf's guys out. We sided with Bhutto knowing that Musharraf's days were numbered. There is a significant problem with extremist infiltration into Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, but the military has traditionally been the stabilizing element in Pakistani society and that will likely continue to be the case.
"Hugo Chavez would have no problem with America if we hadn't tried to overthrow his democratically elected government, as a result of his decision to allow the people of Venezuela to share the profits from that nation's oil wealth, rather than to allow all of that wealth to be focused on the oil oligarchy elite." You sound like a socialist.
Cuba is Castro and Castro is Cuba (Fidel). Watch for the change. It's coming.
Greg,
If Bush thinks the UN is "irrelevant," why shouldn't everyone else in the world, incuding our buddies in Iran?
>>Musharraf is not the key to Pakistan. The military is. His hold on that establishment weakens with each passing day as his replacement puts his own allies in place and moves Musharraf's guys out.<<
Ashfaq Kiyani is Musharraf's hand-picked successor. He is one of Musharraf's "guys." And all the rest of Musharraf's "guys" were put there by him and remain there now. I doubt Musharraf's "guys" will sit around quietly while Kiyani replaces them with his "guys" who I guess, one might infer from your post, would be better than Musharraf's "guys." In any event, I'm not clear as to how this type of instability makes your point.
Kiyani will move to consolidate his position. He will not sacrifice himself or the military to save Musharraf.
Installing Kiyani was a move by Musharraf to consolidate his power after "taking off the uniform." Kiyani does not operate in a vacuum, he is a Musharraf guy, as are all the top military leaders in Pakistan. Together, they allowed the Bhutto assination to take place to thwart political opposition. Unless Kiyani has the same political ambitions that Musharraf has, the power-sharing arrangement works well for all parties.
If, as Clark pointed out, a bullet finds its way to Musharaf's head all bets are off.
No, it's fear. Fear is what the GOP stands for. Nothing about GOP foreign policy can be remotely considered "realistic," and I think the past 7 years has proven that rather succinctly.
"No, but it's better than it was at this time last year. "
2007 was the worst year of our illegal occupation yet.
"Actually, Iraqi security forces are operating throughout the country, not just in the green zone. "
What? No documentation? I've read otherwise.
"You mean in response to continued attacks on Turkey by the PKK, a terrorist group. "
I mean as a direct threat to any effort to stabilize Iraq. What's happening in the northern, Kurdish part of Iraq is in no way reflective of a stable situation. That was my point.
"How simplistic. I'm sure the presence of more than 100,000 troops in a neighboring country and an American government that had already deposed two foreign governments in two years had nothing to do with it at all. "
We had nothing to do with Iran. Our sights were focused on Iraq, remember? Meanwhile, Europe and China were intently focused on Iran. Iran dissolved its nuclear WMD ambitions. Just a remarkable coincidence, I'm sure.
Ask yourself this, if you really think that it was military threat (which didn't exist at the time against Iran, btw), rather than diplomacy: Why did N. Korea tear down it's nuclear WMD programs when we worked diplomatically in conjunction with China and Japan? Who's really being simplistic here? What happened AFTER we used military force against Iraq? N. Korea developed nuclear weapons. What happened after diplomacy? They got rid of them. Surprise, surprise.
"Yet they refuse to allow unfettered access to UN inspectors to ensure that move never takes place. "
THAT is a violation. They are fully within their rights to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. And, as Michael pointed out, after 7 years of an administration that shows absolute disdain and utter disrespect for the UN, how can you hold any nation to their rules? We've paved the path to hell. The demons will surely follow.
"Time for NATO to step up to the plate. They wanted the mission and they got the mission, but have yet to commit adequate resources to the task. "
Afghanistan is yet another shining example of colossal failure of foreign policy by this failed administration. Had they finished the job there instead of focusing on a nation that posed us no threat, and could actually provide great assistance in the bullshit "war on terror," we would not have to be farming out to NATO in the first place.
"The United States has throughout its history sided with dictators when necessary for U.S. strategic interests."
Obviously, you hate America. At least, that's what I'm told every time I bring up the harsh reality of what our foreign policy over the past 60 years has wrought us. Remember how progressive were railed against when they mentioned that the 9/11 attacks were the result of our decades of misguided policies?
Musharraf is not the key to Pakistan."
He's Bush's boy, though.
"The military is."
The Pakistani military and ISI are the only structured organizations that exist in that country. My question is "Why have we ignored the fact that the former head of Pakistani intelligence wired $100,000 to Muhammed Atta one month before 9/11? Obviously, the US government has some rather seedy ties going on over there.
"His hold on that establishment weakens with each passing day as his replacement puts his own allies in place and moves Musharraf's guys out."
No kidding.
"We sided with Bhutto knowing that Musharraf's days were numbered."
When did that happen? Bush has been 100% behind that dictator since the day he stole office. Did you see Bush supporting democracy when Musharraf instituted martial law? Did you see Bush railing against him when it was learned that he was sheltered the Taliban and al Qaeda? Me either.
"There is a significant problem with extremist infiltration into Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, but the military has traditionally been the stabilizing element in Pakistani society and that will likely continue to be the case. "
Nothing happens in Pakistan without the ISI knowing about it. They are FAR above the military.
"You sound like a socialist. "
You sound like a fascist. You think it's right for a nation to allow a tiny handful of wealthy elitists to rape and pillage the wealth of the nation, without giving anything back? Who has the right to claim a nation's wealth as their own? What Chavez did was right, morally, ethically, and most importantly, for the people of his nation. Two options: One, you give the heart of the nation's wealth to a handful of elite oligarchs. Two, you share the nation's wealth amongst the nation's population. No brainer.
"Cuba is Castro and Castro is Cuba (Fidel). Watch for the change. It's coming."
Where have I heard this before? Don't hold your breath. Our country is closer to turmoil than Cuba is.
"While I have no doubt that Musharraf probably played a role in the Bhutto assassination, it is a little premature for such definitive statements. "
How does he benefit from utter chaos and demands for his removal? I find it far more likely that the CIA worked with the ISA to remove her, especially after she publicly announced the month before that OBL had been killed.
Musharraf benefits from Bhutto's death in that he loses his main political opponent. He keeps Kiyani and his boys in the military happy and in on the game, he'll do well by all of them and vice versa.
Chaos and demands for his removal have been there long before the Bhutto murder. He's circleing the wagons tighter and tighter around himself and the military leaders who are his hand-picked proteges.
I believe he is indeed circling the wagons, and as well, that his days are numbered.
"No, it's fear. Fear is what the GOP stands for. Nothing about GOP foreign policy can be remotely considered "realistic," and I think the past 7 years has proven that rather succinctly." I see we're on the "bash the GOP" bandwagon again. It really is getting boring. The geopolitical definition of realism is the pursuit of national power in support of one's own country's position in the world, in simple terms. That is exactly what Bush has done.
"2007 was the worst year of our illegal occupation yet." I'm guessing the improvements in security and downward trends in attacks and deaths are mere propaganda that involves not only the US government, but the international media as well.
"What? No documentation? I've read otherwise." And I've read (and sat in on the briefings) where they are in Anbar, Diyala, Ninevah, Diwaniyah, Mosul, Tikrit, Basra, and on and on and on. And yes, I know that list is both provinces and cities.
"I mean as a direct threat to any effort to stabilize Iraq. What's happening in the northern, Kurdish part of Iraq is in no way reflective of a stable situation. That was my point." No right to self defense?
"We had nothing to do with Iran. Our sights were focused on Iraq, remember? Meanwhile, Europe and China were intently focused on Iran. Iran dissolved its nuclear WMD ambitions. Just a remarkable coincidence, I'm sure." The remarkable coincidence involves over 100,000 U.S. troops near the Iranian border. I'm sure you're right, though, and the Iranians never thought twice about it.
"Why did N. Korea tear down it's nuclear WMD programs when we worked diplomatically in conjunction with China and Japan?" North Korea has one goal and one goal only: survival of the regime. Kim Jong-Il is willing to trade nuclear capability for guarantees of regime survival. "N. Korea developed nuclear weapons." They had been working on them since Clinton was in office, and oh yeah, lying about it to Clinton.
"Afghanistan is yet another shining example of colossal failure of foreign policy by this failed administration. Had they finished the job there instead of focusing on a nation that posed us no threat, and could actually provide great assistance in the bullshit "war on terror," we would not have to be farming out to NATO in the first place." We didn't farm anything out to NATO. NATO treated 9/11 as an attack on all NATO countries, meaning NATO was on board from the beginning. It just drives you nuts that Bush refuses to be a lame duck president, doesn't it?
"Obviously, you hate America. At least, that's what I'm told every time I bring up the harsh reality of what our foreign policy over the past 60 years has wrought us." I never said you hate America, for the record. I believe you have the country's best interests at heart, and truly want what's best for America. We just have different ideas about what's best and how to achieve it. No animosity there.
Saying 9/11 was a result of our misguided policies makes it sound like you place all the blame on us and none on the psychotic idiots who carried out the attacks. I'm sure that's not what you meant.
"He's Bush's boy, though." Not for long.
"My question is "Why have we ignored the fact that the former head of Pakistani intelligence wired $100,000 to Muhammed Atta one month before 9/11? Obviously, the US government has some rather seedy ties going on over there." The ISI has long been closely tied to al-Qaeda and we've had lots of seedy arrangements with lots of bad actors for a long time. Sometimes it's a necessary evil to achieve strategic objectives.
"When did that happen? Bush has been 100% behind that dictator since the day he stole office." We helped facilitate Bhutto's return and worked to arrange a power sharing arrangement between her and Musharraf. We side with Musharraf when it suits our interests, and it suits our interests less and less every day.
"Nothing happens in Pakistan without the ISI knowing about it. They are FAR above the military." To his credit, Musharraf has conducted some purges of the ISI, although there is still a long way to go.
"You sound like a fascist. You think it's right for a nation to allow a tiny handful of wealthy elitists to rape and pillage the wealth of the nation, without giving anything back?" If they earned it, they should keep it. I'm against government taking excessively to redistribute wealth.
"What Chavez did was right, morally, ethically, and most importantly, for the people of his nation." You're hopeless. He took a democratic election and turned it into a socialist dictatorship.
I call them as I see them. The GOP has become the party of fear and division. Every particle of what they disperse has some degree of founding in one of those two pillars. The overt racism that leaks out in the form of illegal voter caging lists, villifying non-Christian religions, and attacking illegal immigrants are very obviously based in fear. Gay marriage, guns, and God are obviously divisive wedges.
Trust me, I don't like it any more than you seem to, but it is what it is. The GOP is a party that has clearly lost its way and has been forced to resort to desperate tactics in order to have a hope to cling to any level of power. If this party doesn't find its way back to real values and principles soon, they're doomed.
"I'm guessing the improvements in security and downward trends in attacks and deaths are mere propaganda that involves not only the US government, but the international media as well. "
The recent trend has clearly been an improvement, but 2007 was the worst year so far, nonetheless. For much of the year, 3,000 Iraqi citizens were being slaughtered every month. That number is reporteldy down to 600 or so now, for the time being, but that doesn't change the overall dismal year.
"The remarkable coincidence involves over 100,000 U.S. troops near the Iranian border."
We weren't threatening military force against Iran at the time. We were stationed along the IRAQI border, remember?
"No right to self defense? " RE: Kurds
Should we have Saudi Arabia coming in to attack the Shiites, and Iran coming in to attack Sunnis as well? Are you actually suggesting that having Turkey open a new war in Iraq is a GOOD thing at this time?
"North Korea has one goal and one goal only: survival of the regime. Kim Jong-Il is willing to trade nuclear capability for guarantees of regime survival. "
So, you're agreesing with me that diplomacy works. Excellent.
"They had been working on them since Clinton was in office, and oh yeah, lying about it to Clinton. "
Bastards. Actually, they may have been developing the technology under cloak, but they didn't actually develop the nukes until Bush started cocking off.
"We didn't farm anything out to NATO."
I'm pretty sure you understand that I was referring to Bush's decision to abandon Afghanistan and head for a nation that posed us no threat, but the coy act is really cute.
"It just drives you nuts that Bush refuses to be a lame duck president, doesn't it? "
I think I'm speaking for the vast majority of the world when I say "Yes." Can't he just go away? Hasn't he done enough damage already? Of all presidents who should embrace a lame duck status, it's this one.
"Saying 9/11 was a result of our misguided policies makes it sound like you place all the blame on us and none on the psychotic idiots who carried out the attacks. "
Only if one wishes to take is as such. I think it's pretty fair to say that, had we not been spending the past 60 years arming vicious dictators and sending in our military to allow our corporate interests to rape and pillage foreign resources and societies, there would be little desire for any radical to target us.
"Sometimes it's a necessary evil to achieve strategic objectives. "
Thus, 9/11 and future 9/11's. As long as we continue this foolish foreign policy, we will continue to open ourselves to blowback.
"If they earned it, they should keep it. I'm against government taking excessively to redistribute wealth. "
How does a wealthy elitist "earn" a nation's resource wealth, simply because he was fortunate enough to win the gene pool lottery, and was able to buy himself enough influence to position himself to take that wealth? I'm against wealthy elitists taking excessively to redistribute wealth.
"You're hopeless. He took a democratic election and turned it into a socialist dictatorship. "
It's a federal republic, not that different from our own. Whatever he's doing economically, and it seems to be a quasi-blend of both capitalism and socialism, seems to be working, as they've posted 16 consecutive quarters of 12% (average) growth. When was the last time the US posted anything even remotely close to that sort of growth?
That's all I have to say, other than I agree with everything Clark said.
"The GOP has become the party of fear and division." As opposed to the Democratic Party that plays race and class cards at every opportunity.
"The recent trend has clearly been an improvement, but 2007 was the worst year so far, nonetheless." Since September the reductions in violence have been drastic. If they continue, which is up in the air at this point, your argument is moot. I was not the least bit surprised when the mainstream media, which had steadily reported month after month "This is the worst month yet in Iraq," suddenly switched to focusing on a year as the time frame so that instead of saying "four best months yet" they could say "worst year yet." The bias is blatant and disgusting.
"We weren't threatening military force against Iran at the time." The presence of so many troops from the Great Satan is a threat all its own.
"Are you actually suggesting that having Turkey open a new war in Iraq is a GOOD thing at this time?" No, I am not. But it's hard to tell Turkey that they can't defend themselves from PKK attacks when we recognize Israel's right to self-defense in response to Palestinian and Hezbollah attacks.
"So, you're agreesing with me that diplomacy works. Excellent." Only so long as it meets Kim Jong-Ils needs. The minute it doesn't, the whole charade falls apart. Besides, the fact that two regimes had already been taken out by the U.S. didn't hurt. Ask Qaddafi.
"Actually, they may have been developing the technology under cloak, but they didn't actually develop the nukes until Bush started cocking off." Purely timing. Work done on Clinton's watch, but since work completed on Bush's watch, it's Bush's fault. Ridiculous.
"...I was referring to Bush's decision to abandon Afghanistan and head for a nation that posed us no threat..." We didn't abandon anything. We shared the burden with our NATO allies. As for Iraq being a threat, I guess it depends on your definition of threat.
"Of all presidents who should embrace a lame duck status, it's this one." None of them do voluntarily. But some fight back harder than others.
I think we agree on much of the history of U.S. foreign policy. I just believe in spreading the blame where it belongs--on both parties. The danger in some of your posts, it seems, is that you appear to be advocating isolationism. It's a valid theory, but not one that I agree with. We have to be engaged in the world if we are the leading nation of the world. Sometimes that engagement involves unsavory characters. Unfortunately, presidents throughout our history have made some poor choices. But they were choices that had to be made.
"the gene pool lottery" Sounds like Dick Gephart's "winners of life's lottery."
"It's a federal republic, not that different from our own. Whatever he's doing economically, and it seems to be a quasi-blend of both capitalism and socialism, seems to be working, as they've posted 16 consecutive quarters of 12% (average) growth." Venezuelan oil production is half what it was 10 years ago because Chavez is destroying the oil industry for political gain. He is slowly but surely turning his federal republic into a one-man dictatorship.
A realistic person see the facts and ... arms themselves.
My comment seems a bit anemic, sorry guys.
While the GOP is dishing out divisive issues, such as hatred of people of color, gays, non-Christians, and endless fear of the grand boogieman in the middle east, the democratic party is offering unity, hope, and change. It seems to be working in their favor, as it would appear that the masses have grown weary of the fear, hatred, and division that the GOP represents.
"suddenly switched to focusing on a year as the time frame so that instead of saying "four best months yet" they could say "worst year yet." The bias is blatant and disgusting. "
It's not bias. It's called "fact." Deal with it. If you'd like, you may start your calendar in Sept., and march forward 12 months, and we'll see where we're at there. Meanwhile, the rest of the world considers a year to be from Jan. thru Dec. Jan. thru Dec. 2007 was the worst year yet for violence in Iraq. Sorry. I can see that it doesn't fit very comfortably into your partisan world, but it's fact nonetheless.
"The presence of so many troops from the Great Satan is a threat all its own. "
Says you. Obviously, once again, the facts speak otherwise. No need to bother yourself with pesky facts, though. After all, you're a repub, right? No need for them. All you need is partisan-based opinion upon which to base your partisan-based opinions.
"No, I am not."
Thank you for painfully agreeing with me again. It's like pulling teeth, ain't it?
"Only so long as it meets Kim Jong-Ils needs. The minute it doesn't, the whole charade falls apart."
Says you once again. Diplomacy works, when it's done properly. Pressure from numerous countries are what brought N. Korea to its knees. One nation alone cannot force another nation to do its bidding if there is no incentive for them to do so. Witness the glorious republican occupation of Iraq.
"Besides, the fact that two regimes had already been taken out by the U.S. didn't hurt. Ask Qaddafi. "
Let's see...Iran dropped their nuclear weapons program in 2003. Last time I checked, we didn't get our republican occupation of Iraq under way until March 19, 2003, and only you and our miserably incompetent president considered "mission accomplished" before it even began.
Interesting that you bring up Libya. This was a nation that openly admitted to bombing an airliner over Lockerby, and yet has been sheltered from reprisal ever since. Wow, we really showed them, huh? Tough sons of bitches, we are.
In fact, what happened in Libya was another example of diplomacy in action. They told the world that they weren't going to build WMD, which they didn't have, in exchange for hope for a future. Diplomacy worked, once again. What do you know?
"Purely timing. Work done on Clinton's watch, but since work completed on Bush's watch, it's Bush's fault. Ridiculous. "
Ridiculous? How so? You do realize, I'm sure, that Rumsfeld was one of those persons responsible for N. Korea gaining nuclear technology, right? And, you do realize that, until Bush started cocking off like the pathetic, drunken coward that he is, N. Korea fired up development of nuclear weapons, right? That didn't happen while Clinton was in office, just as 9/11 did not happen while Clinton was in office. There comes a time when you folks have to finally admit the catastrophic failures of this miserably failed presidency. You can only blame Bubba for so many years, and it begins to sound like weak, desperate, partisan sniping.
"We didn't abandon anything. We shared the burden with our NATO allies. As for Iraq being a threat, I guess it depends on your definition of threat.
Yes, we did abandon Afghanistan. Bush drew critical resources out of Afghanistan almost immediately after slaughtering over 5,000 innocent civilians, and letting Osama escape into Pakistan, so that he could focus on his illegal occupation of Iraq.
My definition of threat is the actual perps of 9/11. Saddam posed a threat to NOBODY, including its immediate neighbors. Did you not wonder why the neighboring nations weren't jumping on board with Bush's illegal warmongering? He had virtually no military left, he had no WMD, and his nation was decimated by 12 years of bombing and UN sanctions. He posed ZERO threat.
Bear in mind, if you will, that while you and Bush were focusing in on a non-threat, N. Korea was openly declaring that they were building nuclear weapons, and that they would sell them to al Qaeda. No problem though, right? Nope, no need to look at that. Let's invade Iraq instead.
Oh, and btw, Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. That was Saudi Arabia that grew 15 of the 19 alleged hijackers, and it's still Saudi Arabia and Qatar that continue to fund al Qaeda, sunni insurgents in Iraq, and extremist Islamic schools that teach hatred and violence. No threat there though either, right? Nope. Let's go get Iraq. And then, tomorrow, we can go after Canada or some other nation that poses absolutely zero threat, but conveniently has bazillions of barrels of sweet crude. Nice foreign policy. No blowback possibilities there, right?
"I just believe in spreading the blame where it belongs--on both parties"
It's not "parties," that are controlling this mess. If it were, you'd see dramatic changes from one white house to the next. Instead, our policies around the world have basically remained unchanged for the past 60 years, save for bouts of overt aggression now and then, and, of course our latest decision to throw away the rule of law and begin to torture, rape, abuse, murder, and indefinitely incarcerate people, whether they've done anything wrong or not.
"The danger in some of your posts, it seems, is that you appear to be advocating isolationism."
Removing our military presence from around the world is not "isolationism." Isolationism would be to do that, and then to refuse to carry out diplomacy with any nation that we disagreed with, or that didn't do precisely what we ordered them to do.
"Sometimes that engagement involves unsavory characters."
It's only necessary to engage with criminal thugs and murderers when you're pushing a policy of murder and thuggishness. If we weren't muscling our corporate entities into the far parts of the world, in order to rape their resources and labor, there would be no need for us to use military force to overthrow democratically elected governments and replace them with brutal dictatorships, to beat down the masses.
You seem to be under the mistaken notion that the only two choices are to either continue acting as mafioso, or to crawl into a shell. That's absurd.
"Venezuelan oil production is half what it was 10 years ago because Chavez is destroying the oil industry for political gain. "
Just look at what you've just stated. Even with oil production at half what it was 10 years ago, Chavez has managed, somehow, to produce 16 consecutive quarters of 12% average economic growth. And, you find this a reason to villify him? I thought you people were all about economic growth? Suddenly, because it's being dished out by someone that you're government has told you to despise (and whom you undoubtedly know next to nothing about yourself), you completely shift your ideological beliefs on command?
"He is slowly but surely turning his federal republic into a one-man dictatorship. "
Again, your partisan-based opinion. You may not be aware of this, but much of the hatred that Chavez has for the US, and that you have been instructed to share with him equally, is based upon this white house's failed coup attempt against him shortly after their swearing in.
The bushies, being the oil company exec toadies that they are, took it upon themselves to stage a coup, in order to replace the oil oligarchs into power, as soon as Chavez began to distribute oil wealth to the masses.
The person who was selected to be the new head of the country was none other than the head of the oil industry, before Chavez threw him out of power. After the military turned their guns on this oligarch and tossed him out to reverse the coup, he fled to none other than Florida. Just a shocking coincidence, I'm sure.
"It seems to be working in their favor, as it would appear that the masses have grown weary of the fear, hatred, and division that the GOP represents." You're living in a fantasy world. Dems will pick up some congressional seats in November, but the WH is very much in play.
"It's not bias. It's called "fact." Deal with it." My point is that the press focuses on the time frame that suits them. It's no coincidence that they switched from month to month to an annual period when month to month began to look better.
"After all, you're a repub, right? No need for them. All you need is partisan-based opinion upon which to base your partisan-based opinions." Ditto, except I'm not a repub. I tend to vote repub, but have voted dem. Depends on the candidate and the office.
"Diplomacy works, when it's done properly." You mean like when Clinton got an agreement from N. Korea to stop nuke production?
"Let's see...Iran dropped their nuclear weapons program in 2003. Last time I checked, we didn't get our republican occupation of Iraq under way until March 19, 2003, and only you and our miserably incompetent president considered "mission accomplished" before it even began." Entered Iraq in early 2003, weapons program stopped in mid-2003. Coincidence, I'm sure.
"In fact, what happened in Libya was another example of diplomacy in action. They told the world that they weren't going to build WMD, which they didn't have, in exchange for hope for a future." But Qaddafi was working on a program. Again, coincidence that he dropped the plans after Afghanistan and Iraq fell. Couldn't be that he thought he was next.
"That didn't happen while Clinton was in office, just as 9/11 did not happen while Clinton was in office." Again, it's all Bush's fault. Just conveniently discount what happened on Clinton's watch. It's not important. Bubba did so much wrong that it's easy to blame him for years.
"My definition of threat is the actual perps of 9/11." Then you miss the point of a global war on terror.
Saddam bore zero threat? That's why the Kuwaitis allowed, and continue to allow, us to conduct operations from their territory. I'm sure we forced them, though.
"No problem though, right? Nope, no need to look at that. Let's invade Iraq instead." I've said many times Iraq was not my first choice of targets.
"basically remained unchanged for the past 60 years" Then how could it all be Bush's fault? "begin to torture, rape, abuse, murder, and indefinitely incarcerate people" Prove it, minus the indefinitely incarcerate part. For that, enemy combatants are not entitled to U.S. constitutional protections.
"Isolationism would be to do that, and then to refuse to carry out diplomacy with any nation that we disagreed with, or that didn't do precisely what we ordered them to do." Diplomacy is only effective when backed by credible military forces.
"Chavez has managed, somehow, to produce 16 consecutive quarters of 12% average economic growth." The only thing keeping Chavez alive is the high price of oil, which happens to go up when supply is decreased. Drastic price drop and Chavez can't support his domestic policies.
You're hatred of Bush is astounding.
>>Interestingly, Bill Richardson is probably the one guy in the entire field, democrat or republican, that is truly qualified for the presidency. The guy has great credentials, but no shot. I've never voted democrat in my life, but he's a guy I'd pay some attention to.
Greg Reeson, Dec 11, 2007, 2:01pm EST <<
Greg,
It seems you never voted Democrat in your life before you voted Democrat based on the candidate. Like your boy in the White House, you've got a little "credibility gap," as they say.
I get it. You're "not a republican." But, you vote Republican at the National and State levels and, except for one or two times in your life, at the local level as well.
I'm not trying to beat you up about it, but I find this indicative of your arguments in general. You sort of pay lip service to being independent, but your actions say otherwise.
I really don't care whether you're partisan or not. Why not just take the stand one way or the other? I have voted democrat and republican at the National, State and Local levels. I voted for Reagan twice. I voted for the Democratic candidates since. I've never voted Democrat in my local town elections because the stance the Republicans take on development (none at all) and taxes (lower). Until the primaries of 2006, I was registered "unaffiliated." I switched to Democrat specifically so I could vote against Lieberman.
On paper, I am the classic "independent" that has been completely turned off by Bush and the neocons of the current Republican party. It's no secret that I hate Bush and believe he has done more harm to this country than any "foreign threat" could possibly ever do. I stand by that wholeheartedly. The son-of-a-bitch has done nothing right... nothing. He hijacked democracy in 2000, and it's been all down hill since. Whoever takes office in '08 has their work cut out for them just unwinding the colossal mess this stupid moron has created. No ambiguity here. No nuance.
"It's no secret that I hate Bush and believe he has done more harm to this country than any "foreign threat" could possibly ever do." That's where you and I disagree. I believe he has taken responsible actions as president of a country faced with a serious threat.
"The son-of-a-bitch has done nothing right... nothing." He took away an al-Qaeda safe haven in Afghanistan, ridded the world of a ruthless dictator, got Libya to abandon its WMD program, lowered taxes,.....
It boils down to fundamental differences between you and I on what's best for the country. I don't fault you for your beliefs, because I feel you truly have what you believe to be the best interests of the country at heart. We just disagree about what's best.
Without finishing the job (they just picked up and moved to Pakistan) nor capturing the man responsible for pulling of the biggest act of terror in history. And, contrary to the notion that he is "harmless," the fact that bin Laden remains at large provides a HUGE inspiration to terrorists all over the globe by proving the "Great Satan" can't get him.
>>ridded the world of a ruthless dictator<<
Against the advice of his father, his Sec of State and other thoughtful Statesmen who understood the perils of a sudden, dramatic shift in Iraq. And speaking of al Qaeda hangouts where none existed before. Not to mention a trillion wasted U.S. dollars, thousands of dead American soldiers and countless others wounded with ruined lives, etc., etc., etc.
>>got Libya to abandon its WMD program<<
Speaking of ruthless dictators and sponsors of terror.
>>lowered taxes<<
All the while spending us into the verge of bankruptcy (a $9 trillion debt ceiling that just keeps climbing). Fiscal stupidity.
"Against the advice of his father, his Sec of State and other thoughtful Statesmen who understood the perils of a sudden, dramatic shift in Iraq." None of whom were president in March 2003. They can provide advice, but the decision is his.
"All the while spending us into the verge of bankruptcy (a $9 trillion debt ceiling that just keeps climbing). Fiscal stupidity." We are spending less than 4% GDP on defense / the wars. The economy can handle it. Historically we have spent much more as a percentage of GDP for prolonged conflicts.
Tell it to Bhutto. I love this logic from you guys. Just spin it away and not call a mistake a mistake.
Let's put it this way, a man walks into your home and shoots your entire family to death leaving you. He goes up into the Appalachian mountains, avoids justice and lives out his days. This means "nothing" to you but your lack of "satisfaction?"
We have a family in our town who lost their son, daughter and grand daughter on one of the planes that hit the Towers. I can assure you that bin Ladens' escape from justice runs much deeper than mere "satisfaction" for them. And since you presumably don't know where he is, I'm assuming you can't be so sure just exactly what the hell he's up to. What a smug, thoughtless, twisted logic way to excuse away yet another Bush blunder.
>>They can provide advice, but the decision is his.<<
Couldn't agree more. In the immortal words of Stephen Colbert, Dubya is "a man of conviction. One who believes the same thing on Wednesday that he did on Monday. Regardless of what actually happened on Tuesday." This one's on Dubya, for sure.
>>The economy can handle it.<<
Again, you call yourself a fiscal conservative and yet you excuse away the excessive spending and massive debt run up under Dubya's watch. If it were a Dem in the White House who never once vetoed a spending bill sent to him by a Dem-controlled congress, you'd be screaming bloody murder. Yet, with Dubya. It's all ok.
"Just spin it away and not call a mistake a mistake." It's not a mistake. I've argued from the beginning that a war on terror is bigger than any one man, even if that man is bin Laden.
"Let's put it this way, a man walks into your home and shoots your entire family to death leaving you. He goes up into the Appalachian mountains, avoids justice and lives out his days. This means "nothing" to you but your lack of "satisfaction?"" Faulty comparison between an isolated criminal act and a murderous ideology that has targeted innocents for decades.
"What a smug, thoughtless, twisted logic way to excuse away yet another Bush blunder." While I can't say with certainty what he's up to, I do know that he hasn' pulled off another attack on our homeland.
"Again, you call yourself a fiscal conservative and yet you excuse away the excessive spending and massive debt run up under Dubya's watch." Excessive spending has been going on in Washington since long before GWB. My point was in reference to war spending and overall defense spending. Try cutting some of the pork that comes out of the congress and gets approved by multiple presidents.
That's one area where I fundamentally disagree with Bush. He has let historical spending patterns go on unabated, despite claiming to be a fiscal conservative. But the problem runs much deeper than just Bush. The only reason we had a surplus under Clinton was because he enacted the largest tax increase in history.
"Yet, with Dubya. It's all ok." No it's not, but our economy is not in the dire straits that are being portrayed in the media. Normal economic cycles have ups and downs, and we are due, historical timing wise, for a slowdown. But we will rebound. It's the nature of our economy and why the Dow has historically gone up.
No question Washington spending is out of control, but to pin it on just this president is wrong.
>>a murderous ideology that has targeted innocents for decades.<<
And bin Laden remains at large thumbing his nose at the Great Satan who promised he'd be brought to justice "dead of alive" and acting as a major figurehead inspring those who believe in this idealogy to act on those beliefs.
It was a mistake not to find him.
>>The only reason we had a surplus under Clinton was because he enacted the largest tax increase in history.<<
Let me get this straight, Clinton raises taxes and we have a surplus. Bush lowers them and we have a deficit. Doesn't that kind of fly in the face of the Republican mantra of cutting taxes to increase revenues and lower deficits?
We'll have to disagree on bin Laden.
"Let me get this straight, Clinton raises taxes and we have a surplus. Bush lowers them and we have a deficit. Doesn't that kind of fly in the face of the Republican mantra of cutting taxes to increase revenues and lower deficits?"
Not really. Clinton raised taxes while spending pretty much stayed within historical averages. Bush lowered taxes, which does historically increase revenue (see Kennedy, Reagan, Bush tax cuts), but spending dramatically increased, both because of the wars and because of record numbers of earmarks from the Congress that survived into law.
It is true that cutting taxes increases revenues, but if total government spending (which both parties abuse) outpaces those revenue gains, the deficit cannot be reduced. If spending had remained constant, the increased revenues from lowered taxes would have reduced the deficit. As it is, projections for the deficit have been continually revised downward because revenues have proven stronger than expected.