A few days ago I talked about how conservatives have a habit of explaining the failures of their ideology through the shortcomings of individuals.
In other words, it can't fail people but people often fail it. The moral is always the same: had only (insert name here) stayed truer to the Faith or been a more strident believer, he/she would not have failed so spectacularly.
Thank god I only had to wait a few days to find an appropriate contemporary example. To that end, I firmly believe, based on the principle of going into a decision with one's eyes open, this op-ed by McCain's foreign policy advisor should be mandatory reading for every American of voting age.
When I make blanket statements about the mental age of the American public hovering around 13, this sort of reasoning is what sways me. From the title ("Go With the Tough Guy" – seriously) to the underlying concept of how people and nations interact (intimidation and alpha male chest beating; you know, like zoo animals) this reads like the manifesto of a pasty, Pringle-fattened junior high kid plotting his revenge for being picked on.
President Bush has not done enough to back up his threats against Iran and Syria…(he) has refused to authorize even limited special operations strikes on jihadist networks inside Syria or Iran.
This is part of a larger trend of Bush combining strong words with weak actions….This disconnect has done serious damage to American standing and credibility.
online pharmacy buy clomid online no prescription pharmacyIt is hard to see how Bush could reverse this decline in America's "fear factor" during the remaining year of his presidency. That will be the job of the next president. And who would be the most up to the task?
To answer that question, ask yourself which presidential candidate an Ahmadinejad, Assad or Kim would fear the most. I submit it is not Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or Mike Huckabee. I submit it is not Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or Mike Huckabee. In my (admittedly biased) opinion, the leading candidate to scare the snot out of our enemies is a certain former aviator who has been noted for his pugnacity and his unwavering support of the American war effort in Iraq. Ironically, John McCain's bellicose aura could allow us to achieve more of our objectives peacefully because other countries would be more afraid to mess with him than with most other potential occupants of the Oval Office — or the current one.
I want to emphasize two things here. First of all, if anyone tries to pretend that a vote for McCain is not a vote for a couple additional wars in the next few years, print this article and jam it in the speaker's eye. Second, it is obvious why George Bush's foreign policy failed – he isn't neoconservative enough. Too much of a pussy. He strayed from the ideology. He only started wars in two measly countries, whereas a neocon with some hair on his taint would already be indiscriminately raining ordinance on Syria and Iran as well.
The fact that so many Americans think this way makes me want to get into the casino business. When your strategy has brought you to the brink of ruin, the proper strategy is clearly to go deep into debt and double down.
Let me know how that works out, OK?
JDryden says:
I dunno–is there the chance that this piece is just part of McCain's overall attempt to rally the neo-con base? That, rather than being an accurate reflection of his opinions, it's an empty promise intended to woo the Far Right?
Perhaps I'm being optimistic; certainly, McCain hitched his wagon to the invasion/occupation, and there's a sense that he can't go back lest he seem as if he Voted For The War Before He Voted Against It, and his defense of the surge and his walk through the marketplace all seem to suggest that he believes that we're doing the right thing, but there's a quality of hyperbole to his defenses–his claim that he'd be fine with our being there another 100 years, for instance–that suggests political overcompensation to me.
In any case, if it *is* a ploy, it's a bad one, since a decisive majority of Americans want us Done and Out, so promising Even More Of The Same is *not* a winning strategy.
Nan says:
I think you meant raining ordnance, not ordinance, although I actually wouldn't put it past the Repugnicans to try to bury other nations in useless legislation in addition to pounding them into the stone age with weaponry.