Topic awaiting preservation: Grand Strategy in the Second Term (Page 1 of 1)

quote:

---

Summary: In his first four years, George W. Bush presided over the most sweeping redesign of U.S. strategy since the days of F.D.R. Over the next four, his basic direction should remain the same: restoring security in a more dangerous world. Some midcourse corrections, however, are overdue. Washington should remember the art of speaking softly and the need for international legitimacy. Read the full article

---

Very good paper written by John Lewis Gaddis, Professor of History at Yale. Surprisingly refreshing and mostly unbiased. Thought I would share with anyone interested.

Ramasax

Many mistakes in that article - especially concerning Iraq and Afghanistan. And it doesn't come out and call the Bush Administration incompetent - rather, it dances around the issue.

I was never against the direction that the US has taken - on the contrary, I recognized long ago that WMD were very nasty threats, and may one day fall into the hands of terrorists. Thankfully, that day hasn't come yet - but it will.

The Bush Administration has concentrated on the wrong areas, and made the wrong decisions, time and again (as was somewhat described in the article, just not in such a tone, or in so many words). Our traditional allies are largely alienated. We have turned the ME into something...but we have no control over what. Nuclear proliferation seems to be on the rise, not the decline (the opposite from what we need to accomplish). And we still haven't brought the man to justice who was responsible for 9/11 - and it looks like that trail is getting colder and colder.

To do what the Bush Administration wants to do, we need all of our allies. Bush failed to produce this, and worse, alienated them at a time when we needed them. This gave the enemy valuable time, resources, and more important, a weakened western front. This is ENTIRELY the fault of the Buish Administration, and will take years of repairing, if it is at all possible. I largely suspect that relations will only return to a sembelance of normality when Bush is gone from office.

Second, Bush has had no plan on what to do after. Everything the Bush Administration planned for proved to be wrong. Now, it is stumbling around in indecision, groping for a direction. It is desperately clinging to the idea of elections, which will, in and of themselves, not solve things. There is no plan for after, no real plan for dealing with the guerillas, or winning back the minds and hearts of the middle east, in fact.

Where is the plan for failing in Iraq? If Iraq does fall apart, what plan is there? What if it partially suceeds? I see no concete plan for the Middle East, only a vague outline, with no real meat on it.

Bush has always been great on what is supposed to happen - and little on what will happen. Action without a plan is almost as bad as no action. And in some cases, is worse.

I agree, the Bush administration has done a pretty poor job in many areas on the Middle East front, but we have to remember that they are human, and do slip up. I personally think that he did a little more slipping than I would like, but he does have some good ideas. (don't ask me what, I am just giving him the benefit of the doubt) The reason I would have voted for Bush is because in my mind he was the lesser of two evils. I don't like Bush. I really don't like John Kerry. Voting for an independant is throwing a vote away. I just think it is really sad when you can't look up to your president because he is a warmonger.

As for the article, I didn't get to read it all the way through, but it sounded like it presented facts in as good a manner as it could. Ofcourse there was some bias, but not as much as the usual President articles do.

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

Okay here are some of the things that worry me about Iraq. It's not going to get finished completely. Who's to say the next president isn't going to come along and say "Whoa! Iraq! I ain't getting into that mess." Then it doesn't get finished and this Bush leaves Iraq a half-a$$ed mess just like the last one. Which gets another villainous person into power (eventually) and we look like the bunch of idiotic apes we are because we just made the same mistake as last time. By giving the wrong guy power. And yes for all you people who are wondering how Saddam got power. WE PUT HIM THERE! The same goes for the rest of this global war on terrorism. Bush seems to think he is going to go every where and wipe out terrorism on a global scale. THIS WON'T happen. There is no way he can do that in four years and there is no garuntee that the next president or another president down the line will continue with it. Besides that freedom is like religion. You can't force it on people. If you do they aren't practicing THEIR religion they're practicing YOUR religion, you have just helped out the devil. If you force freedom on somebody who doesn't want it then you have a war then even if freedom does win terrorism or whatever else is deemed the enemy of freedom just moves over a little bit and then you have more violence. And it just keeps going in the same vivivious cycle. Ultimately: Bush is a good guy but an unrealistic leader. Besides that he is a stupid little bugger that has an iq that would insult the monkey he looks like.

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte