My thoughts exactly.

We can only hope this argument becomes central to the election debate from now on.

Who is worse Obama or McCain?It’s a tossup in my humble opinion.

LBJ’s argument to continue fighting in Viet Nam eventually lapsed into absurdity. We
should stay on to prove that we have “staying power”. Is that a strategic objective? Perhaps
a more rational argument would have been, to prevent Southeast Asia from falling to the
Communists, which it did, producing the Cambodian genocide and a Vietnamese generation of
boat people. But surprisingly, no one, at least in the US, had foreseen these two calamities.
Pulling out precipitously in Viet Nam produced not only millions of deaths, but also the
betrayal of South Vietnamese forces (the ARVN) that couldn’t continue fighting because the
Church admendment cut off military supplies, allowing the North Vietnamese to overrun the
South.  Yes, going in may have been a mistake, but pulling out precipitously may be even
a bigger one.  Where are our neocon theoreticians who got us into the present mess?

What makes sense is to pursue a strategy to victory.  That means defeat Islam.

We should have a draft, invade Iran, and then surround and blockade Pakistan to give up its nukes.

Pakistan is the same sanctuaries as N Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. Go to the source this time, while we have the advantage.

Islam can defeat the West. Stop 3rd world immigration as well.  Wake up and recognize the war.  The napalm is already here, on 9/11. We are at war with Islam right here.

I believe that Obama will not substantially change American foreign policy in the mideast. He will only pacify the mainstream Democrats into buying into continuing the same old interventionist/internationalist goals that Bush2/McCain advocate. Liberals can be persuaded that any US military adventurism is permissible as long as it is portrayed as “humanitarian”. Which explains the hoopla among the liberals for “Saving Dafur"…
Obama is merely changing the “spin”, not the policy.

Obama is right in one sense. Pakistan---with it’s nukes---is as strategically important
to the US as Iraq---that is IF you accept the premises that the US economy is tied to
oil, and our domination of that region.

The US, sadly, does have strategic interests in the Mideast. Our economy is tied to the
petro-dollar. Weaning ourselves off of dependence on nations not much more advanced culturally
from the midevil past is going to be hard and painful. Until the public understands the
importance of a policy that encourages economic soverignty of the US, the American people
will be held hostage to these regimes, and our attempts to militarily dominate them will
bleed us indefinately.

Economic interdependence and “globalization” only leads to constant war.

Mr. Buchanan,

Your argument of analogy as insulting as it is fallacious. The Soviet Union’s military capabilities are not even in the same league as ours.

Next, having achieved military success (if not political), we will soon be in a much better position to win in Afghanistan without having to fight a two-front war.

Chris lyttle sed: The Soviet Union’s military capabilities are not even in the same league as ours.

Actually, the Soviet Union did a lot more with less then the US has done. They came
close to matching us in technology and manufacturing and science, done with an economy
only a fraction of the size of the USA.

Perhaps you think that the US won WWII as well, when any student of history knows that
WWII was a war of attrition with Nazi Germany, with the Russian people bearing the overwhelming
majority of the attition. It’s doubtful that the US and England could have defeated
Nazi Germany with the Soviet Union to bear the brunt of the suffering.

Russia is doing a lot better then the USA right now in perserving it’s economic
soverignty as well as it’s cultural heritage. YOu would be advised to be a lot more
circumspect when it comes to commenting on the creativity and the energy of the Russian
nation.

Joe Populist,

“Actually, the Soviet Union did a lot more with less then the US has done. They came
close to matching us in technology and manufacturing and science, done with an economy only a fraction of the size of the USA.”

I was actually comparing the military capacity of the Soviet Union in the eighties to the current military capacity of the United States. I thus repeat my assertion that there is NO comparison. Our ability to fight a counterinsurgency is far superior.

“Perhaps you think that the US won WWII as well, when any student of history knows that WWII was a war of attrition with Nazi Germany, with the Russian people bearing the overwhelming majority of the attrition. “

Indeed…and perhaps I don’t think that and gave you no indication that I did. However, I must challenge this next statement.

“It’s doubtful that the US and England could have defeated Nazi Germany with the Soviet Union to bear the brunt of the suffering.”

If the costs of attrition had proved too high for us to endure, I imagine we might have dropped a bomb or two on Germany as well.

Old Atlantic:

One wonders how the US co-existed peacefully for 200 years with “Islam,” before
US foreign policy was overtaken by the neo-cons.  Most obviously, Islam
does not exist as a monolithic identity any more than Christianity does.
One only has to consider the civil war in Iraq for 5 minutes to see how divided it is.

An interesting sidenote is that a visit to the Library of Congress reveals that
the 1890 planners of the Library of Congress’s Thomas Jefferson building
(the library’s main building) obviously saw “Islam” as a major contributor
to Western Civilization, as they included a mural (painted by Edwin Blashfield)
devoted to Islam (along with Egypt, Judea, Greece, Italy, Germany, France, England,
Spain, America) as a font of knowledge and contributor to Western civilization,
on the ceiling of the cupola. Islam in the cupola is associated with physic, or
medicine. In fact, the Arab world is represented twice in the mural (by
Egypt and Islam) but I suppose Edwin Blashfield and his associates
were simply being politically correct (before the concept even existed).

Here is a more accurate description of the circular mural. I was slightly incorrect.
There are actually 12 panels of the epochs or countries that contributed to Western
civilization. Arabia is represented twice, (doubtless you will say for completely
politically correct reasons so as not to offend the vast Muslim immigrant constituency
of the 1890’s). By the way, I personally don’t give a crap about Islam or any of its
tenets-- I am just noting the completely Orwellian way in which Islam has become
the enemy du jour, after 200 years of somehow ignoring this terrible threat to
our existence. See below description and link below:

Egypt, Judea, Greece, Rome, Islam, Middle Ages, Italy, Germany, Spain, England, France, and America are the twelve figures typified, and in their characterization the painter has introduced the features of several personages, more or less famous, which lends interest to the whole. Thus, the Middle Ages, contributing modern languages, bears the countenance of Mary Anderson; England, contributing literature, is a portrait of Ellen Terry; Germany, bringing the art of printing, carries the features of General Casey, the architect of the Library; while Abraham Lincoln’s countenance dominates the features of America, whose contribution to civilization is science. In France (emancipation) the model for the face was the artist’s wife, and a young sculpturess of New York is said to have inspired the physiognomy for the figure of Italy, bearing the fine arts.

http://www.oldandsold.com/articles34/art-treasures-26.shtml

George Ball, the most honest of John Kennedy´s crowd maintained that LBF was led into Vietnam by JFk´s advisors, notably the Bundys and MacNamara.  To buttress his qualifications LBJ war his Silver Star pin in his lapel.  This frauldulence was awarded to him so the military would have a better friend in Congress.  Johnson´s incompetence led to the unnecessary deaths of thousands.

The Russians had superb weapons, German General Blumentritt regarded them as the best of the war.  Solzhenitsyn has maintained the West should have been able to beat Germany in both wars without Russian aid and lives.

There is not enough space to document American incompetence in both European wars, but we were of little consequence.

At the risk of defending LBJ, he was under pressure from all sides of the bipartisan spectrum to escalate in Vietnam.  Even before the 1964 election, Goldwater accused the Dems of doing little to stop the communist advance there.  Here’s an eerie parallel:  will the neocon Right push another liberal Democrat into unnecessary escalation in Afghanistan and elsewhere?

“Change” in the Beltway Dictionary is described as
“1. the process of signing rubber checks going from one party to another”

By all accounts, Mr. Obama will assume the mantle of “Commander In Chief” gleefully but with the gravitas of Iceberg Slim while his pesky friends in Congress will fulfill their current role as being something abjectly worse in comparison.

Ditto for Mr. McCain.

The only change the American Public will see is the inexorable decline in standards of living brought to them by a government that thinks Regulation is a magic act and currency is the rabbit one pulls from the ass hat. Count upon the military playing a big role here, following the plot line of all authentic Banana Republics.

Afghanistan has watched occupiers limp away for millennia. The fact that we profess to have finer aspirations will ultimately mean little because in this age of mechanized tribal warfare, finer aspirations are obviously a handicap. Welcome to the Information Dark Ages.

Me and my neighbor were discussing who was the lesser evil of McCain and Obama. We decided Obama only because he hadnt been in the senate as long as McCain.

McBama = O’Cain = State-capitalism = big biz + big Gov. = perpetual war for peace =
America - McBama’s not even black he just had a tuxedo grafted on for perpetual gala
events. This ain’t ameriCa, you can’t fool me. I’m like american indians used to be
prior to casinos on the reservations. Blacks wondered how do you get into the system,
american indians of old and me today - we wonder how do we get Out?! Possibly by
applying for a scholarship on taki’s yacht?! (humor) or i’d probably have to become an
orthodox jew rather than just fooling around. can’t i’m an Essene, not a pharisee - i
ain’t no lawyer. My only concern is offending everyone ‘equally’. Judge me accordingly.

Old Atlantic sez, “What makes sense is to pursue a strategy to victory. That means defeat
Islam.” What does that statement imply? Bomb Indonesia, Tunisia and Saudi Arabia, etc.
into the Stone Age?  Does that mean put all Islamic leaders in the dock in a great
Nuremberg show trial? Does that mean register every believer in Allah in a de-Nazification
Program? Please define the end state you’d like to see achieved. Can “victory” include
understanding Arab points of view and negotiating a modus vivendi based on common interests?
Or is that selling out?

It’s astonishing that despite the number of defeats America has suffered throughout the years it insists on some twisted naive optimism when it comes to wars. Just throw more money into it, that solves everything, right? Dump more soldiers in there, that should work. Move soldiers from there to over there. Surge. Pay off our enemies- after all everyone has a price, no?

These maniacs in politics seem to believe that wars can solve something, or are they just pretending to be tough, because, well, you can’t go out there and appear weak, or worse, suggest to resolve things by talking.

Now when was the last time, we invaded some country and as a result, they gained democracy and we were able to maintain our interests under control? As the most hated country in the world for decades, we don’t have the luxury of invading countries militarily and in top of that staying there and expecting the occupied to do as we say and be happy under American subjugation.

Do these neo-cons (Obama and McCain included) really think that we’ll be able to wipe out Islam (and the Arabs too for good measure, and we might as well kill all Persians while we’re at it) so that we can install Wolfowitz as the president of Pakistan, the Pod as president of Afghanistan, Frum as president of Iraq/n?

My Dear Patrick-

“Obama’s war”? You must be joking. Obama no more wants war in Afghanistan than he does a
Clintonian yoke.

His “10000 more troops” line is stock, right-shift electioneering. Don’t be mislead. If this isn’t symbolic chest-thumping to garner the southern nationalists (or whatever they’re calling
themselves these days), then he’s dutifully channeling his closet alter-ego JFK, and thereby subtly
lobotomizing the liberal horde. One out of two aint bad....

Truth be told, I’m suprised I haven’t heard a “pay any price” trope by now.

No, he hasn’t really convinced himself of the need to fight a war ANYWHERE, let alone in the
dead-zone of the planet called Afghanistan. This is a visionary man in search of an ideological
freefall and a geopolitical crapshoot. And when he picks your boy James Baker to ride shotgun, things will only get worse.

What youre witnessing now is that he’s reduced himself to these populist, unassailable war-posturings because his understanding of bin Laden and the multi-faced jihadists is manifestly sophomoric. He’s playing it safe, my friend-coin of the realm for the man who would be king and, well, who’s from the SOUTHSIDE.

Once things begin to degenerate domestically, he’ll be seen atop the Rose Garden, prime-time
goose-stepping and screaming that we best bulldoze the Pashtuns, in the fine spirit of yet another Quixote gone mad.

While I fuuly agree with the message Mr. Buchannan is sending a couple of footnotes:

1. We need to distinguish between Al qaida (a terrorist movement) like the red brigades, and the Pashtun national liberation movement incorrectly labaled “taliban” and lumped together with al quada incorrectly.
The former must be isolated and defeated, the later caanot be defeated if the experience of every invader of afghanistan has learned, most recently the glorious red army.
2. Obama has no choice but to send reinforcements soon to buttress the current “precarious” situation.
Eventually Obama is intelligent enough to understand that some kind of face saving agreement will have to be worked out before we banckrupt ourselves.
There is no oil or gas in Afghanistan so we are in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Eventually Pakistan will isolate and eradicate Al Qaida but that may be a bridge too far unless the pashtuns support the effort, and that cannot happen under the afghan tribal code so long as foreigners are trying (unsuccessfully) to occupy afghanistan

Kilcullen had it right: Invading Iraq was fuck*ng stupid.

I predict that Obama and McCain’s policy will be similar to what one can read in Foreign Affairs, the Wilson Quarterly and Foreign Policy.  Giving money to Third World countries we invade, CFR members in the State department and other officials from White Shoe law firms, establishment think tanks and “elite” university faculty, especially from the Economics and Political Science departments. 

80 percent of the populace thinks this country is going in the wrong direction and the Fortune 500 and their network of sycophants don’t care one jot.

Chris Lyttle sed: “If the costs of attrition had proved too high for us to endure, I imagine we might have dropped a bomb or two on Germany as well.”

Well, lucky for us that Russia defeated Germany, so we didn’t have to use that option.

Of course, that assumes that Germany hadn’t finished their version first, and dropped it on us first. They
were close to developing it already, and they had the missiles to deliver it.

Chris Lyttle sez:” Our ability to fight a counterinsurgency is far superior (to the Soviet Union)…

Which is why 8 years later, we haven’t defeated the counter-insurgency yet. What world do you
inhabit? No end in sight to the “hundred year” war for “democracy”.

The goals of the terrorists are to: 1) Bleed us economically; 2) dilute our military power by forcing us to dispurse our military assets all over the globe, 3) create political dissention at home.

The American century is over, between metrosexual liberals on one hand, and the libertarian/globalization/free market/Ronald Reagan Right on the other hand, the US is being undermined more effectively and quickly then anything the old Soviet Union could have imagined.

The American century is over, between metrosexual liberals on one hand, and the libertarian/globalization/free market/Ronald Reagan Right on the other hand, the US is being undermined more effectively and quickly then anything the old Soviet Union could have imagined.

You’re right about the prognosis but wrong about the cause.  Libertarians have no influence in the US.  If they did, the US economy and standard of living would not be in trouble.

The Federal Reserve system is a centralized, anti-competitive, socialist institution and it controls the entire banking industry.

The amount of regulations imposed from Washington is greater than it has ever been.

The military posture socializes many the costs and risks of many of the pet projects of domestic special interest groups (e.g. pro-Israeli Jewish Americans, anti-Castro Cuban Americans, etc).

America has never been as socialist as it is now.

Joe Populist,

“Which is why 8 years later, we haven’t defeated the counter-insurgency yet. What world do you
inhabit? No end in sight to the “hundred year” war for “democracy”.

I live in a world where Jewish neocons sidetracked the war in Afghanistan to fight an unnecessary war in Iraq that would theoretically make Israel safer. If Bush had not been duped by the likes of Wolfowitz, then the war in Afghanistan would be over by now.

Jupiter:

I disagree with your entire post.

Brock Townsend
RVN 10/’67-04/’71 & 05/’73- 04/’75.

Amin:  “Libertarians have no influence in the US.  If they did, the US economy and standard of living would not be in trouble.”

Uh, Alan Greenspan is a LIBERTARIAN, more then you and the others who claim the title
of “Libertarian”. He is the ultimate mainstream “libertarian”...one of the inner circle
of the Cult of Ayn Rand, he was Rand’s house economist.

The problem is that you don’t see past the utopian bull-toss, and actually believe the
nonsense about the “free market”....you are as irrelevant as utopians in the communist
party, that Stalin killed and persecuted.

Yes we have ‘socialism” in America, socialism for the CEO classes, Wall Street bankers, and
recently real estate speculators and hedge fund managers. The US is still a “free market”
economy, but only for the rest of us.

Utopian visions are dangerous. You sound like my acquaintences in the “progressive” left,
which constantly claim that the Soviet Union was not “true” communism, but was actually
capitalist. Give it up, Amin.

Amin:  “Libertarians have no influence in the US.  If they did, the US economy and standard of living would not be in trouble.”

Uh, Alan Greenspan is a LIBERTARIAN, more then you and the others who claim the title
of “Libertarian”. He is the ultimate mainstream “libertarian”...one of the inner circle
of the Cult of Ayn Rand, he was Rand’s house economist.

Alan Greenspan WAS a libertarian, until he became the chairman of the fed. 

He supported the gold standard 40 years ago, arguing that it takes power away from the government and puts it in the hands of individuals:

http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/greenspan.html

This may have been what he believed, yet he still took the job at the fed, an institution diametrically opposed to the philosophy he advocated in “GOLD AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM”.  If people like him had influence and/or were genuine in their beliefs, the Fed would be abolished.

Madrid,

Go back to dhimmitude in Al Andalus.
The same Jefferson, who you presumed loved Muslims, had us fight one of our fist oversees conflicts against Moorish Piracy/Berber Razziahs against American shipping.

With the exception of the Minando campaign in the Philippines’ occupation, our conflict with Muslims was not really our choice. until the 1940’s the Muslim world was largely dominated by European powers. Frankly, during the early Cold War, our policy towards the Muslims was anti-colonialist appeasement. Hence, we betrayed England France and Israel, all to help Egypt. (The net results being increased Soviet influence, and the revanchist French lunacy of Eurabia.) And it was to counter the Arab-Soviet alliance that we supported Israel later on.