Home  >  Community  >  The Vendio Round Table  >  BUSH SAYS SO WHAT IF YOUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS DIED


<< previous topic post new topic post reply next topic >>
 skylite
 
posted on January 12, 2004 09:54:22 AM new
PRESIDENT BUSH: “SO WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE” IF YOUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS ARE NOW DEAD BECAUSE I LIED

President’s Shocking Taunt Caught On Video


JANUARY 9, 2004 – The date was December 16, 2003. Saddam Hussein had just been captured. President Bush was feeling his oats, invincible at the moment, redeemed and propelled by the recent events.

It was in this context that he stepped up, more boldly and brashly than ever, and let down his guard to show his true feelings. And what resulted was one of the brashest, most horrendous commentaries ever made by a US President, and the whole incident was caught on tape by ABC News.

It was during an interview with Diane Sawyer. She opened an exchange with the President regarding his WMD claims and the lack of evidence that has turned up to back them up so far.

DIANE SAWYER: Fifty percent of the American people have said that they think the administration exaggerated the evidence going into the war with Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, connection to terrorism. Are the American people wrong? Misguided?

The President hemmed and hawed a bit, trying to avoid answering, but Diane pressed the issue.

DIANE SAWYER: …When you take a look back, Vice President Cheney said there is no doubt, Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, not programs, not intent. There is no doubt he has weapons of mass destruction. Secretary Powell said 100 to 500 tons of chemical weapons and now the inspectors say that there's no evidence of these weapons existing right now. The yellow cake in Niger, in Niger. George Tenet has said that shouldn't have been in your speech. Secretary Powell talked about mobile labs. Again, the intelligence — the inspectors have said they can't confirm this, they can't corroborate.

Once again the President, I guess used to being on FOX News and getting only interviews by people who don’t demand actual answers, hemmed and hawed and tried to avoid answering. Diane asked again:

DIANE SAWYER: Again, I'm just trying to ask, these are supporters, people who believed in the war who have asked the question.

The President made one more feeble attempt to avoid answering, giving just another of his Rush Limbaugh like non-answers that work on talk-radio and with Bush/Limbaughians, but not in the real world. But at last, when Diane pressed him one more time, he let down his guard, lost his temper, and let out his true feelings with a horrific admission.

DIANE SAWYER: (You) stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still —

PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?

“So what’s the difference?” if he lied, said our President plainly. “So what’s the difference?” if hundreds of our sons and daughters are dead and still dying, if we killed thousands of Iraqis, if the American taxpayers have spent over $100 billion dollars, sending the nation even further into massive debts. “So?” “So what’s the difference,” if it was all just a trick and a bunch of lies on his part?

Diane, as you could expect, was flabbergasted, and could only get out:

DIANE SAWYER: Well —

The President had become the arrogant gangster boss who just told the chief of police, “Yeah, so what if I’m running a drug cartel – what are you going to do about it?” In reality, what could Diane do – she had done all she needed to, capturing the President’s confession on video tape.

The President, emboldened by Diane’s momentary stunned stammering, cockily set back into trying to feed Rush Limbaugh lines, as if nothing had just happened. That is the typical follow-up of any abusive addict or criminal type. They say something so heinous, challenging you to do something about it, and then act is everything is still just normal and go on again as if you have no reason to be startled or take action.

“Yeah, so what if I’m lying?” the belligerent, wife-beating husband tells his wife. And then, figuring she will not have the courage to respond or take action, he acts as if what he said was no big deal and goes on like everything is normal and he never said what he said.

In this manner, the President fed Ms. Sawyer another Limbaugh line, but Diane was tough as nails and refused to back down

DIANE SAWYER: But, but, again, some, some…

Notice how she had to fight just to speak. But she continued…

DIANE SAWYER: But, but, again, some, some of the critics have said this, combined with the failure to establish proof of, of elaborate terrorism contacts, has indicated that there's just not precision, at best, and misleading, at worst.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah. Look — what — what we based our evidence on was a very sound…

He must have felt he was back in his old partying days with people who would let him get away with saying obvious lies weren’t lies. Diane didn’t.

DIANE SAWYER: Nothing should have been more precise?

PRESIDENT BUSH: What — I, I — I…

Now the President was stammering. He was beginning to realize he had just been caught on tape with a horrible confession.

PRESIDENT BUSH: What — I, I — I made my decision based upon enough intelligence… Saddam Hussein was a threat...

Desperate and pathetic. He used “enough intelligence.” “Saddam was a threat.” Like the belligerent teenager caught with a bag of dope, he tries to shift focus to any unrelated thing he can. Mom has to drag him back to the actual question, not does his friend Bobby smoke dope, not about if his grades in school are good or not, but is he using drugs and stealing money.

In this case, the question wasn’t if Saddam was a nice person who his father should have been friends with or not, and the question wasn’t if he had ever read any intelligence reports. The question was, “You just looked America in the eye and said, “So what’s the difference,” if all your claims which you used to get us to agree to the war were based on lies. You and your administration said clearly and repeatedly that Saddam had lots of weapons of mass destruction right now and was an immediate danger to American because of this, and this was why we had to go to war now.

DIANE SAWYER: …If he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction? [inaudible] —

Finally, President Bush decided to, even though on video, just tell yet another flat out lie. In desperation, he said:

PRESIDENT BUSH: I made the right decision for America because Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction (in 1986, using helicopters my father gave him with US taxpayer money, and not once since then), invaded Kuwait (over a decade ago and has since withdrawn and never invaded anyone else)…

Yes, this is the lie the President now tells over and over and over, completely without conscience. “So what if everyone is fighting and dying because of my lies? Even more, so what if they keep dying because I’m still lying now? I lied and will continue to lie all I want, and “So what” who dies or what it destroys or costs the nation.”

Now you have yet more clear evidence as to why no good American can support President Bush. Everyone knows his State of the Union speech and dozens of other speeches by him and his administration did not say, “We must go to war because in 1988, when my father still sent taxpayer money to Saddam and called him an ally, Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people – and has never ever used them since, or because Saddam invaded Kuwait over a decade ago and has since withdrawn and never invaded anyone else.” Everyone knows he said Saddam was a threat now, had lots of WMDs now – the President knows this. And yet he, completely without conscience, not even changed or affected by the fact that so many people are directly dying because of his lies, continues to add lie upon lie upon lie.

His brainwashed supporters will say, “He didn’t lie,” even as they see it here in quotes again, “I made the right decision for America because Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction (in 1988 on his own people using helicopters my dad gave him,) invaded Kuwait (over a decade ago, and has long-since withdrawn for there)…”

This is why any true patriot despises this man and knows the most important lying tyrant America must deal with is President Bush. And yes, we put in the information in the parenthesis in that last quote above because, unlike the rest of the media, we refuse to allow people to use our space to air their lies. No one ever should let the President tell the lies he does without inserting correcting information and pointing out clearly that he is lying. The rest of the media may fall prey to this game that has been the backbone of the Bush/Limbaugh rise to power – the, “You have to air our lies or you are partisan,” game – but not us here at The Moderate Independent.

You Bush/Limbaughians don’t like it? "So, what’s the difference?"

The most shocking thing about all this, of course, is that this hasn’t been top news all over the press. Honestly, they were so busy kissing the President’s butt at that point because Saddam had just been caught that they, once again, gave him a free pass. I guess that’s why M/I now exists, to air actual news and not just right-wing, Bush/Limbaughian PR about fake Latino initiatives and space programs.

Don't be surprised if this video footage ends up in a campaign ad for one of Bush's rivals.

____________________________

REFERENCE:

ABC NEWS Prime Time Live Interview, December 16, 2003.


 
 Linda_K
 
posted on January 12, 2004 10:19:04 AM new
Here we go again. Want to post a link to who/where President Bush was quoted as saying what you're accusing him of saying. Maybe a link to the ABC transcript of that interview???????
-------

ABC is well know for it's anti-Bush stand. Their people are continually being mentioned by other news sources as being VERY biased against him.

Here's just one recent account from media research:

ABC Suppresses Poll Showing Post-Husseim Capture Bump for Bush:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20031216.asp


Re-elect President Bush!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 12, 2004 10:21 AM ]
 
 fenix03
 
posted on January 12, 2004 10:33:11 AM new
Linda - Since Skylite is traditionally a hit and run poster - here is the link for you

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/US/bush_sawyer_excerpts_2_031216.html

If you read the entire transcript it was hardly anti Bush - it was just after Saddams capture and there was a lot of back patting but at the same time there were legitimate questions that needed to be asked. I don't think it is "anti-BUsh" to ask about all of those weapons caches that we told the UN we knew the location of yet have not been able to find. That's responsible journalism.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Jan 12, 2004 10:34 AM ]
 
 Linda_K
 
posted on January 12, 2004 10:52:09 AM new
Fenix - I have NEVER said asking questions is bad policy. Never.
But you can read many of almost the exact same articles/subjects and it is VERY clear which way they slant in general.


You may not agree that ABC is very slanted in their views of this administration, but many see it very differently.


Thank you for posting that link. I will read it later, but I would BET MY HOUSE that it does not quote this President as saying "[i]SO WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE" IF YOUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS ARE NOW DEAD BECAUSE I LIED."

That's what I reacted to in my post and why I asked for a direct link. It's the shameful/sick way people like to distort the truth by implying he said that full sentence.
Re-elect President Bush!!
 
 fenix03
 
posted on January 12, 2004 11:09:19 AM new
He did say "What's the difference" - I think Skylite added the ending for drama
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
 
 Linda_K
 
posted on January 12, 2004 11:12:50 AM new
No $hit. He always posts garbage like that without links to his ultra-left op-ed's.


Re-elect President Bush!!
 
 wgm
 
posted on January 12, 2004 12:35:15 PM new
That is taking his comment TOTALLY out of context. He was answering her question about chemical weapons...

"DIANE SAWYER: (You) stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still —"



__________________________________
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to the people who sleep under the very blanket of freedom I provide, and then question the manner in which I provide it. I'd rather you just said 'thank you' and went on your way." - A Few Good Men
 
 kraftdinner
 
posted on January 12, 2004 01:06:33 PM new
I don't see why this issue has become right or left. Either Iraq does or doesn't have nuclear weapons. If they do, the President didn't lie. If they don't, he did. How can the outcome be dependant on which party you support?

 
 Helenjw
 
posted on January 12, 2004 01:15:45 PM new


Maybe as Kucinich suggested, he may look for WMD on Mars or the Moon. Ha ha ha!

 
 kraftdinner
 
posted on January 12, 2004 01:25:07 PM new
Helen, it's funny how soon people forget that when Bush first suggested going after Iraq, it was because of the al qaeda connection. It wasn't until much later that the WOMD issue was used because the terrorist connection never gained momentum. That's when the U.N. inspectors were sent in...

 
 Helenjw
 
posted on January 12, 2004 01:28:54 PM new

It's remarkable that people still don't recognize that KD...absolutely remarkable!

Mind control is a powerful tool and apparently the White House has the best marketing/propaganda team in the world.

 
 Helenjw
 
posted on January 12, 2004 01:39:36 PM new


This article with the embellished quote actually works against helping people understand the situation and how many lies Bush told the American people. Although I think the quote reflects Bush's true attitude I think that it was a mistake to embellish his original quote. There is enough truth to indict him without resorting to such silly distortion of his quote.

Helen

 
 Helenjw
 
posted on January 12, 2004 01:55:33 PM new


Here is an entire page of current press coverage compiled as part of the Carnegie Report about the absence of WMD and the involvement of the Bush Administration. News reports are all dated between Jan. 8 to Jan 12, 2004.

This is very important and reliable information from reputable news sources.

Helen

 
 austbounty
 
posted on January 12, 2004 01:56:56 PM new
CLICK HERE to search for WOMD

Bush made true and honest representations to his people as opposed to ‘he attempted to give that illusion’.

A truthful man / a deceitful man.

So what’s the difference?


 
 Helenjw
 
posted on January 12, 2004 02:12:38 PM new

LOL! at your Link, austbounty


Carnegie Reports

If you scroll down past the news articles there are some very interesting Carnegie reports on the issues of the Iraq war and WMD.


"WMD in Iraq," by Jessica Mathews, George Perkovich, Joseph Cirincione and Alexis Orton,7 January 2004

"The Congress Shares Responsibility for War," by Joseph Cirincione and Michael O'Hanlon, Los Angeles Times Op-Ed, 19 November 2003

"The Kay Contradiction," by Joseph Cirincione, October 2, 2003

"Chief Weapons Hunter David Kay Will Present Part of Findings to Congress," Joe Cirincione on CNN's American Morning, September 26, 2003

"The Kay Report Comedown," by Joseph Cirincione, September 2, 2003

"Between the Lines: Revisiting the Case for War," Foreign Policy Article by Joseph Cirincione and Dipali Mukhopadhyay, August 20, 2003

"Inflated Trailer Threat," by Joseph Cirincione, 12 August 2003

"Q & A on Iraq’s Weapons Programs," Issue Brief by Joseph Cirincione, 30 July 2003

The Intelligence Bell Curve by Joseph Cirincione, 17 July 2003

"And the Winner Is….." by Joseph Cirincione, 11 July 2003

"Can Preventive War Cure Proliferation?" by Joseph Cirincione, Foreign Policy, July/August 2003

"Follow the Threat Assessments," by Joseph Cirincione and Dipali Mukhopadhyay , 27 June 2003

"The DIA on Iraq's Chemical Weapons Program," 13 June 2003

"Powell Proves Deception, But Not Imminent Threat," Carnegie Analysis by Joseph Cirincione, February 5, 2003

Iraq Chapter - Deadly Arsenals: Tracking Weapons of Mass Destrucution (pdf)

[ edited by Helenjw on Jan 12, 2004 02:16 PM ]
 
 skylite
 
posted on January 12, 2004 02:17:02 PM new
Study Published by Army Criticizes War on Terror's Scope

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 12, 2004; Page A12

A scathing new report published by the Army War College broadly criticizes the Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism, accusing it of taking a detour into an "unnecessary" war in Iraq and pursuing an "unrealistic" quest against terrorism that may lead to U.S. wars with states that pose no serious threat.

The report, by Jeffrey Record, a visiting professor at the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, warns that as a result of those mistakes, the Army is "near the breaking point."

It recommends, among other things, scaling back the scope of the "global war on terrorism" and instead focusing on the narrower threat posed by the al Qaeda terrorist network.

"[T]he global war on terrorism as currently defined and waged is dangerously indiscriminate and ambitious, and accordingly . . . its parameters should be readjusted," Record writes. Currently, he adds, the anti-terrorism campaign "is strategically unfocused, promises more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate U.S. military resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security."

Record, a veteran defense specialist and author of six books on military strategy and related issues, was an aide to then-Sen. Sam Nunn when the Georgia Democrat was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

In discussing his political background, Record also noted that in 1999 while on the staff of the Air War College, he published work critical of the Clinton administration.

His essay, published by the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, carries the standard disclaimer that its views are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Army, the Pentagon or the U.S. government.

But retired Army Col. Douglas C. Lovelace Jr., director of the Strategic Studies Institute, whose Web site carries Record's 56-page monograph, hardly distanced himself from it. "I think that the substance that Jeff brings out in the article really, really needs to be considered," he said.

Publication of the essay was approved by the Army War College's commandant, Maj. Gen. David H. Huntoon Jr., Lovelace said. He said he and Huntoon expected the study to be controversial, but added, "He considers it to be under the umbrella of academic freedom."

Larry DiRita, the top Pentagon spokesman, said he had not read the Record study. He added: "If the conclusion is that we need to be scaling back in the global war on terrorism, it's not likely to be on my reading list anytime soon."

Many of Record's arguments, such as the contention that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was deterred and did not present a threat, have been made by critics of the administration. Iraq, he concludes, "was a war-of-choice distraction from the war of necessity against al Qaeda." But it is unusual to have such views published by the War College, the Army's premier academic institution.

In addition, the essay goes further than many critics in examining the Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism.

Record's core criticism is that the administration is biting off more than it can chew. He likens the scale of U.S. ambitions in the war on terrorism to Adolf Hitler's overreach in World War II. "A cardinal rule of strategy is to keep your enemies to a manageable number," he writes. "The Germans were defeated in two world wars . . . because their strategic ends outran their available means."

He also scoffs at the administration's policy, laid out by Bush in a November speech, of seeking to transform and democratize the Middle East. "The potential policy payoff of a democratic and prosperous Middle East, if there is one, almost certainly lies in the very distant future," he writes. "The basis on which this democratic domino theory rests has never been explicated."

He also casts doubt on whether the U.S. government will maintain its commitment to the war. "The political, fiscal, and military sustainability of the GWOT [global war on terrorism] remains to be seen," he states.

The essay concludes with several recommendations. Some are fairly noncontroversial, such as increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps, a position that appears to be gathering support in Congress. But he also says the United States should scale back its ambitions in Iraq, and be prepared to settle for a "friendly autocracy" there rather than a genuine democracy.

To read the full report, go to washingtonpost.com/nation




 
 kraftdinner
 
posted on January 12, 2004 02:18:18 PM new
That's a great site, Helen. Thank-you for the link!



 
 austbounty
 
posted on January 12, 2004 02:18:52 PM new
Linda LOOK!!!!

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has a link to Al-Jazeera on it's site.

Therefore, it is not reliable????
What do you think?

 
 CBlev65252
 
posted on January 12, 2004 02:31:10 PM new
Great comments, you guys! Now, I'm off to the Democratic Party Caucus where I'll have to give a speech in front of a bunch of people I don't know and a news camera or two. I must have written what I am going to say 10 times. I've decided to wing it. Hee, hee. Could be interesting dependant upon what conversations I had with whom before I have to make a speech. I will consider the whole thing a victory if I don't faint in the middle of talking. Hopefully, I will have good news soon. If not, at least I gave it a shot.

Cheryl
http://tinyurl.com/vm6u
 
 Helenjw
 
posted on January 12, 2004 02:39:08 PM new

Wheee!!! Next you'll be running for governor!

Good Luck!



 
 fenix03
 
posted on January 12, 2004 02:49:10 PM new
Good Luck Cheryl!!!


OK - now I have to say that this comment scares me.....
::Larry DiRita, the top Pentagon spokesman, said he had not read the Record study. He added: "If the conclusion is that we need to be scaling back in the global war on terrorism, it's not likely to be on my reading list anytime soon." ::

It worries me when our government openly states that it reads no briefing or position papers in which the end conclusions do not already subscribe to their personal beliefs.


~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
 
 kraftdinner
 
posted on January 12, 2004 03:24:11 PM new
We're all (meaning the good guys) behind you, Cheryl!!

 
 gravid
 
posted on January 12, 2004 03:31:19 PM new
You can say all you want about Sawyer being a hard hitting journelist but she blew it here. She was flustered and stammering when she should have said:

"What difference does it make? It makes a difference if we can believe any of the most basic and important things you tell us. Things that lead directly to life or death for thousands of people. Things we need to know to decide if you are worthy of our trust to remain in your office."

 
 Helenjw
 
posted on January 12, 2004 03:51:33 PM new

I don't see anything hard hitting about Sawyer. She should have pinned him down on that remark..."So what's the difference?"

Instead, she was flustered, stunned and stammering???

That was the chance of a lifetime and she blew it.



 
 kraftdinner
 
posted on January 12, 2004 04:38:21 PM new
I don't know... if he had've said those things in an interview I was doing, I would have been stunned and speechless. I'm sure it was totally unexpected.

The cat's out of the bag anyway. Bush is doomed.

 
 Helenjw
 
posted on January 12, 2004 06:01:17 PM new

I hope that O'Neill has even more info. The Bushco spinners are already in business.



Number of days between Novak column outing Valerie Plame and announcement of investigation: 74 days.

Number of days between O'Neill 60 Minutes interview and announcement of investigation: 1 day.

Having the administration reveal itself as a gaggle of hypocritcal goons ...priceless.

-- Josh Marshall

 
 neroter12
 
posted on January 13, 2004 03:26:09 AM new
Linda, CBS is known as a more conservative news organization. They did a story on Chaney and how so far in this term his time has been mainly spent fund raising.

What is their slant?

You keep saying news organizations are biased and liberal. But they are the watchdogs and merely report what is or is not happening.



 
 Helenjw
 
posted on January 13, 2004 12:38:23 PM new



And all of this in just seven days?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Now, I don't know about you, but this all strikes me as a bit odd. This is far too much and far too fast for an administration so practiced in the black art of press control. Maybe it is all coincidence, maybe some of it is, or maybe none of it is, but with the President's State of the Union address right around the corner, I'm suspecting a fly in the ointment. There are simply too many insiders doing too much talking all at once and too many others letting them. My guess is that Daddy's CIA is lurking somewhere around the edges here, with the Plame Affair probably being the straw that broke that camel's back. Payback's are a-#*!@."
Benedict Spinozo

A Fly in the Ointment

Pardon me, but does anyone else think that this is all a bit strange? Last Tuesday, it was the Washington Post's major story about the failure to find any sort of evidence of active WMD programs in Iraq after 1991. The following day, the Carnegie Endowment released their own major report saying that the administration "systematically misrepresented" the threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to war, and the New York Times published their story about 400 weapons inspectors getting pulled from the WMD hunt.

Continued with links




[ edited by Helenjw on Jan 13, 2004 12:46 PM ]
 
 Helenjw
 
posted on January 13, 2004 01:50:35 PM new



Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute

This is a very long pdf report...short summary excerpt...

Bounding the Global War on Terrorism
Jeffrey Record
December, 2003


SUMMARY
In the wake of the September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorist attacks
on the United States, the U.S. Government declared a global war on
terrorism (GWOT). The nature and parameters of that war, however,
remain frustratingly unclear. The administration has postulated a
multiplicity of enemies, including rogue states; weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) proliferators; terrorist organizations of global,
regional, and national scope; and terrorism itself. It also seems to
have confl ated them into a monolithic threat, and in so doing has
subordinated strategic clarity to the moral clarity it strives for in
foreign policy and may have set the United States on a course of
open-ended and gratuitous confl ict with states and nonstate entities
that pose no serious threat to the United States.


Of particular concern has been the confl ation of al-Qaeda and
Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as a single, undifferentiated terrorist threat.
This was a strategic error of the fi rst order because it ignored
critical differences between the two in character, threat level, and
susceptibility to U.S. deterrence and military action. The result has
been an unnecessary preventive war of choice against a deterred
Iraq that has created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic
terrorism and diverted attention and resources away from securing
the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable
al-Qaeda. The war against Iraq was not integral to the GWOT, but
rather a detour from it.


Additionally, most of the GWOT’s declared objectives, which
include the destruction of al-Qaeda and other transnational terrorist
organizations, the transformation of Iraq into a prosperous, stable
democracy, the democratization of the rest of the autocratic Middle
East, the eradication of terrorism as a means of irregular warfare,
and the (forcible, if necessary) termination of WMD proliferation to
real and potential enemies worldwide, are unrealistic and condemn
the United States to a hopeless quest for absolute security. As
such, the GWOT’s goals are also politically, fi scally, and militarily
unsustainable.


Accordingly, the GWOT must be recalibrated to conform to
concrete U.S. security interests and the limits of American power.
The specifi c measures required include deconfl ation of the threat;
substitution of credible deterrence for preventive war as the primary
vehicle for dealing with rogue states seeking WMD; refocus of the
GWOT fi rst and foremost on al-Qaeda, its allies, and homeland
security; preparation to settle in Iraq for stability over democracy (if
the choice is forced upon us) and for international rather than U.S.
responsibility for Iraq’s future; and fi nally, a reassessment of U.S.
military force levels, especially ground force levels.


The GWOT as it has so far been defi ned and conducted is
strategically unfocused, promises much more than it can deliver,
and threatens to dissipate scarce U.S. military and other means over
too many ends. It violates the fundamental strategic principles of
discrimination and concentration.

SUMMARY
In the wake of the September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorist attacks
on the United States, the U.S. Government declared a global war on
terrorism (GWOT). The nature and parameters of that war, however,
remain frustratingly unclear. The administration has postulated a
multiplicity of enemies, including rogue states; weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) proliferators; terrorist organizations of global,
regional, and national scope; and terrorism itself. It also seems to
have confl ated them into a monolithic threat, and in so doing has
subordinated strategic clarity to the moral clarity it strives for in
foreign policy and may have set the United States on a course of
open-ended and gratuitous confl ict with states and nonstate entities
that pose no serious threat to the United States.


Of particular concern has been the confl ation of al-Qaeda and
Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as a single, undifferentiated terrorist threat.
This was a strategic error of the fi rst order because it ignored
critical differences between the two in character, threat level, and
susceptibility to U.S. deterrence and military action. The result has
been an unnecessary preventive war of choice against a deterred
Iraq that has created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic
terrorism and diverted attention and resources away from securing
the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable
al-Qaeda. The war against Iraq was not integral to the GWOT, but
rather a detour from it.


Additionally, most of the GWOT’s declared objectives, which
include the destruction of al-Qaeda and other transnational terrorist
organizations, the transformation of Iraq into a prosperous, stable
democracy, the democratization of the rest of the autocratic Middle
East, the eradication of terrorism as a means of irregular warfare,
and the (forcible, if necessary) termination of WMD proliferation to
real and potential enemies worldwide, are unrealistic and condemn
the United States to a hopeless quest for absolute security. As
such, the GWOT’s goals are also politically, fi scally, and militarily
unsustainable.


Accordingly, the GWOT must be recalibrated to conform to
concrete U.S. security interests and the limits of American power.
The specifi c measures required include deconfl ation of the threat;
substitution of credible deterrence for preventive war as the primary
vehicle for dealing with rogue states seeking WMD; refocus of the
GWOT fi rst and foremost on al-Qaeda, its allies, and homeland
security; preparation to settle in Iraq for stability over democracy (if
the choice is forced upon us) and for international rather than U.S.
responsibility for Iraq’s future; and fi nally, a reassessment of U.S.
military force levels, especially ground force levels.


The GWOT as it has so far been defined and conducted is
strategically unfocused, promises much more than it can deliver,
and threatens to dissipate scarce U.S. military and other means over
too many ends. It violates the fundamental strategic principles of
discrimination and concentration.

 
 profe51
 
posted on January 13, 2004 06:38:09 PM new
What would you expect from the US Army War College...that bunch of unpatriotic socialist weenies.
___________________________________
Mi abuelita me dijo "en boca cerrada no entran moscas".
 
 
<< previous topic post new topic post reply next topic >>

Jump to

All content © 1998-2024  Vendio all rights reserved. Vendio Services, Inc.™, Simply Powerful eCommerce, Smart Services for Smart Sellers, Buy Anywhere. Sell Anywhere. Start Here.™ and The Complete Auction Management Solution™ are trademarks of Vendio. Auction slogans and artwork are copyrights © of their respective owners. Vendio accepts no liability for the views or information presented here.

The Vendio free online store builder is easy to use and includes a free shopping cart to help you can get started in minutes!