Re: "Think Again: Bush�s Foreign Policy" -- world

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

05/19/26 7:53:48am

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5] ]

Subject: Re: "Think Again: Bush�s Foreign Policy"

Author:
krz

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10/ 7/04 9:11:09pm
In reply to: tjm 's message, ""Think Again: Bush�s Foreign Policy"" on 10/ 6/04 9:26:53pm

Really enjoyed this piece T - Thanks for posting. Where do you find these articles? I'd love the web link if you have opportunity to disseminate.

So, some questions

(1) the piece pointed to the issue of the administrations ends being inconsistent with the means to those ends -

(from the article)
�The Bush Administration Has the Right Strategy but Implements It Badly�

No.

Strategy links means to ends, designing tactics capable of achieving goals. Bush�s foreign policy is vulnerable to criticism not because it departs radically from previous administrations, but because it cannot succeed. The goals are unachievable because the means and ends are out of sync.
(end)

In this age - is there a means that could be consistent with the ends given the volatility of a country led by at best a despot, and at worst a madman? (pa's follow up link as case study in Saddam as an example). I think this is where I struggle most. I continue to support our entry into Iraq to depose Hussein - WMD at the moment or no. It would appear that varied groups (albeit government sponsored) tend to triangulate on the same conclusions:
(1) we did not find wmd
(2) absense of actual weapons is not equivalent to absense of desire to attain them
(3) past behavior suggests that, if left to his own devices, Saddam would have pursued development of some wmds - although the timeline for that development was likely a long time in coming
(4) Saddam had visions of becoming a player in Middle-East and viewed wmds as one means to that end
(5) offense as good defense is neither new to this country nor new to the US's action in the world

The triangulation of sources at the moment for me anyway are the 9/11 Commission report, reports to the UNSC, and the Duelfer report of pa's post (thanks - I'd listened to the NPR take on the Duelfer report to the Senate prior to the post, and appreciate being able to read the report first hand. Very different take from what was reported on NPR by the way. I appreciate the time you took to give us the link.)

What do you all think, is there a means, or is time the means to this end? I'll be honest, I really had distaste for Bush's mantra of 'Stay the course' but perhaps it's because I didn't get it until I've done additional reading. I still have problems with the slogan's oversimplification of complicated concerns, but I think I better understand the context in which it is offered.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
not so Foreign Policy"	pa	10/ 8/04 9:42:10am
Re: not so Foreign Policy" -- pjk, 10/ 8/04 12:31:34pm I say pitter, you say patter -- pa, 10/ 9/04 4:03:53pm