BenNatuf
Limit Authority
- Jan 7, 2011
- 1,640
- 123
I agree with Mr. Cain; however, that Obama hasn't articulated and doesn't seem to be able to answer those questions does not mean they don't have answers.Though I'm sure both our reasons for it and the methodology we'd choose differ which would result in our being in disagreement, we seem to be the only ones who agree on that part.I voted 'convince congress', because we really do need to do this. We cannot withdraw now.
We very well may need to do this, but nobody has convinced me that we're doing anything constructive so far. I am willing to be convinced if somebody has a convincing argument for that though.
Right now I am in the Herman Cain camp of war policy:
1. What is our mission. What do we intend to accomplish.
Does anybody know? What ARE we intending to accomplish? Remove Gadaffi? What will replace him? Protect the rebels? The last I heard we don't even know for sure who they are but we do know they've summarily thrown out anybody who attempted to broker negotiations and have refused humanitarian aid. That looks strangely as if their situation isn't so grave as we were led to believe?
I honestly don't know. Does anybody?
2. How will the mission be accomplished? What is the plan to accomplish the goal. Is the goal victory or a specific target? War should not be figured out as we go along.
Do any of you know what the plan is? The target is? If so, I need to be educated on that.
3. How do we know when we have accomplished the goal? What will victory or success look like? Or will be figure that out as we go along too? Failure to know this will likely bog us down into years and years of costly ill defined goals and constantly changing objectives as we now have in Iraq and Afghanistan and we won't likely ever know when or if we are done.
Our troops deserve better than that. If you disagree, convince me.
for instance as to what the mission is.
First we must determine what interest we might have. I know Bush is thought of as an idiot by many; however, the Bush doctrine is playing out before our eyes. It predicted that installing a functioning democracy in Iraq would lite a fire of desire in the ME for democratic reform and more liberty. No-one, including Bush, thought it would happen quite this way or quite this soon. According to the doctrine this wave would initiate demands for democratic reform, ME countries would have to assuage those demands or they would be overthrown. Preferably they would institute reforms on thier own and the region would slowly and inexoriably move toward democratization. Liberty and democracy are the greatest moderating influences on institutional extremism known to man, and as such would, over time, moderate Islamists extremists by allowing them a voice which would be over time marginalized. It predicted that extremists could actually use the system to take power, but also predicted that as long as the democratric mechanisms were left in place they would be supplanted in the long run. In doing this the threat of extremist terrorism on any large scale would be lessened and eventually end up just being the kook fringe. Our interest in the GWOT would tend to mean we should follow this policy.
If Obama had actually believed in the Bush doctrine instead of rejecting it, it's possible we may have done some covert groundwork and been more ready to deal with this instead of having to fly by the seat of our pants. If he had we might know more who the players are, we might have been able to covertly and quietly, behind the scenes, helped to support and build up some leadership that we could support. There is a democratic movement, it is based in Benghazi, the leadership does not apopear to be extremist oriented, and appears to be somewhat secular. We could have made of them a much more politically viable force, one that would counter the extremists and been more "western friendly". One that may have attracted support from some Libyan military leaders that may have precluded our military involvement.
That is our interest and our mission should be to enable it.
How do we do it?
A mixture of covert, overt and diplomatic support that no-one should know too much about.
What is the end game?
Democratic reforms that result in the empowerment of people dedicated to democratic government and increased liberty and lead to their popular election.
Bush doctrine 101
Last edited: