I don't know what to make of the White House's foreign "policy". It's precipitous brinkmanship through a buckshot. Today they want to sit down with Iran, last week Cheney warned the U.S. would not allow the IRI to interrupt the oil flow aboard an aircraft carrier 150 miles off Iranian shores. Tomorrow, who knows.
We look weak. Not because we want to sit down with Iran, but because like retired Marine Corps General Sheehan recently said, there is no strategic view. We have ad-libbed Iraq for four years. Iran and Syria have no reason to believe the White House can plan, let alone implement, a coherent strategy this late in the game.
Unfortunately every President now wants a 'legacy'. They prefer 'peace' legacies these days, and so will talk to any tyrant or dictator that threatens innocents to, pretty-please, ask them to stop doing so. The problem with this rush to legacy in the last two years is that it horribly backfires: Clinton and NoKo, Bush I doing nothing in Iraq, Reagan not addressing terrorism funded by Iran and Syria, Carter being himself and wanting a 'peaceful solution' to everything... Ford didn't get a chance, due to the Nixon legacy, which was corruption in high office. LBJ realized he was botching Vietnam and badly, but left us with a greatly expanded Federal government to pay for. Kennedy had no chance, but gets pluses and minuses both for his work in office, Eisenhower stopped NoKo but then put nothing down to hold it and China accountable but did uphold 'containment'.....
This Bush cannot end his term in office with 'peace' - it is undoable, just as Clinton could not do so in with the PLO *or* in the Balkans or respond to terrorism or stop NoKo. Most Presidents don't have a 'legacy' worth talking about and it is the notable few that do: Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Nixon. No one said it was a *good* legacy. The overwhelming majority of Presidents have not been notable, not been world shakers, not been in the 'legacy' business. Taft? Hoover? Cleveland? Harding? Garfield? Yes, a few things here and there, good and bad, but.... 'legacy'?
A Predident like Teddy Roosevelt or Andrew Jackson would just have the Iranian weapons plunked down, bring in a few Qods prisoners and tell Iran: "If it is war you want, it is war you will get."
We don't have anyone like that today in politics. Nor a Nation like that one... a place called the United States of America.
Jeffersonian: The problem with this rush to legacy in the last two years is that it horribly backfires: Clinton and NoKo
In regards to? LWRs are the way to go. Yes, you can refine the produced plutonium to weapons-grade plutonium, but it's the safest bargaining chip with the nuclear technology available.
Jeffersonian: They prefer 'peace' legacies these days, and so will talk to any tyrant or dictator that threatens innocents to, pretty-please, ask them to stop doing so.
I think this is the 22nd Amendment has more to do with this reality than any legacy trends. Presidents are constrained. There used to be a time when "lame duck" had no meaning. Not that I think the office of the presidency needs to be abused any more than it already is by this administration, but the country does not know whether it will need a peace president or a war president for 4 or 20 years, and it should not hedge its bets on 8 years.
Jeffersonian: A President like Teddy Roosevelt or Andrew Jackson would just have the Iranian weapons plunked down, bring in a few Qods prisoners and tell Iran: "If it is war you want, it is war you will get."
A president like Teddy and Jackson would be stuck in Iraq with expansionist goals. Just like Bush is. The country's prestige just as bankrupt in a world that no longer waits 50 or 100 years to see how Iraq turns out with the cameras ready to roll.
5 comments:
I don't know what to make of the White House's foreign "policy". It's precipitous brinkmanship through a buckshot. Today they want to sit down with Iran, last week Cheney warned the U.S. would not allow the IRI to interrupt the oil flow aboard an aircraft carrier 150 miles off Iranian shores. Tomorrow, who knows.
We look weak. Not because we want to sit down with Iran, but because like retired Marine Corps General Sheehan recently said, there is no strategic view. We have ad-libbed Iraq for four years. Iran and Syria have no reason to believe the White House can plan, let alone implement, a coherent strategy this late in the game.
Unfortunately every President now wants a 'legacy'. They prefer 'peace' legacies these days, and so will talk to any tyrant or dictator that threatens innocents to, pretty-please, ask them to stop doing so. The problem with this rush to legacy in the last two years is that it horribly backfires: Clinton and NoKo, Bush I doing nothing in Iraq, Reagan not addressing terrorism funded by Iran and Syria, Carter being himself and wanting a 'peaceful solution' to everything... Ford didn't get a chance, due to the Nixon legacy, which was corruption in high office. LBJ realized he was botching Vietnam and badly, but left us with a greatly expanded Federal government to pay for. Kennedy had no chance, but gets pluses and minuses both for his work in office, Eisenhower stopped NoKo but then put nothing down to hold it and China accountable but did uphold 'containment'.....
This Bush cannot end his term in office with 'peace' - it is undoable, just as Clinton could not do so in with the PLO *or* in the Balkans or respond to terrorism or stop NoKo. Most Presidents don't have a 'legacy' worth talking about and it is the notable few that do: Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Nixon. No one said it was a *good* legacy. The overwhelming majority of Presidents have not been notable, not been world shakers, not been in the 'legacy' business. Taft? Hoover? Cleveland? Harding? Garfield? Yes, a few things here and there, good and bad, but.... 'legacy'?
A Predident like Teddy Roosevelt or Andrew Jackson would just have the Iranian weapons plunked down, bring in a few Qods prisoners and tell Iran: "If it is war you want, it is war you will get."
We don't have anyone like that today in politics. Nor a Nation like that one... a place called the United States of America.
Drop a line if *that* America ever shows up.
We are in desperate need of it today.
YOu could call this post: the end of U.S.A
Jeffersonian: The problem with this rush to legacy in the last two years is that it horribly backfires: Clinton and NoKo
In regards to? LWRs are the way to go. Yes, you can refine the produced plutonium to weapons-grade plutonium, but it's the safest bargaining chip with the nuclear technology available.
Jeffersonian: They prefer 'peace' legacies these days, and so will talk to any tyrant or dictator that threatens innocents to, pretty-please, ask them to stop doing so.
I think this is the 22nd Amendment has more to do with this reality than any legacy trends. Presidents are constrained. There used to be a time when "lame duck" had no meaning. Not that I think the office of the presidency needs to be abused any more than it already is by this administration, but the country does not know whether it will need a peace president or a war president for 4 or 20 years, and it should not hedge its bets on 8 years.
Jeffersonian: A President like Teddy Roosevelt or Andrew Jackson would just have the Iranian weapons plunked down, bring in a few Qods prisoners and tell Iran: "If it is war you want, it is war you will get."
A president like Teddy and Jackson would be stuck in Iraq with expansionist goals. Just like Bush is. The country's prestige just as bankrupt in a world that no longer waits 50 or 100 years to see how Iraq turns out with the cameras ready to roll.
Ack, my bad. Jacksonian. Well, the reference to Jackson makes sense now.
Post a Comment