Whether or not we agree with Mr. Buchanan's opinions, there is another aspect of them, which seems to run very deeply within his writings; it is the concept of isolationism.
Bonnie Chernin Rogoff's recent criticism of Pat Buchanan has reinforced some of my own past reactions to the gentleman in question. As almost anyone will agree, Mr. Buchanan is an intelligent, articulate individual, who makes sense most of the time when defending America's interests. However, like many of us, he has his Achilles Heel, and unlike the wise man, he refuses to keep it hidden from view. When no one sees our weaknesses, we go up in their esteem. Thus, Mr. Buchanan, by parading his weakness on the Middle East generally, and Israel, specifically, reduces our opinion of him by showing us something we would rather not see.
Buchanan's weakness appears to have two distinct focal points. First, he appears to have a very poor understanding of the region's politics, and second, he fails to recognize any distinct U.S. interests there outside of securing a continued supply of oil from the various Arab nations. Where Mr. Buchanan's knowledge of the local politics goes awry begins with his lack of understanding of the entities participating in the local conflict, or how taking a position against the terrorist elements would benefit America. He seems to think that we would be better off acting disinterested in the region, and perhaps believes that we can generate good will there by doing so. Whether or not we agree with Mr. Buchanan's opinions, there is another aspect of this which, seems to run very deeply within his writings; it is the concept of isolationism.
Back in college, I had a classmate who suggested to me that our success in World War II was due to lack of preparation. He believed that because the military didn't have all of its equipment in place, it was forced to suddenly innovate and come up with new machines, particularly, in the field of aircraft. What my friend didn't know, because he had not studied the subject, was that the most successful aircraft built by the US had been on the drawing boards well before Pearl Harbor; the B17 bombers which attacked Germany by the hundreds on a daily basis were already in service in 1941, and the commander at Pearl Harbor had, purportedly mistaken the attacking Japanese aircraft for a group of these Flying Fortresses, scheduled to arrive from California. Additionally, the Lockheed P38 Lightning was designed in 1937 as a counter to the German Me 109; the Vought F4U Corsair was a product of 1938, and the relative latecomer, the Republic P51 Mustang went onto the drawing boards in 1940. The only factor delaying their presence on the battlefront was getting them into mass production.
True, enough, there were many isolationist elements present in the American political scene during the 1930's. What many of the isolationists believed was that future wars could be restricted to Europe and Asia, while we sat back behind our protective oceans with nothing to worry about. Except that Hawaii was in the middle of the Pacific, and the Philippines were right on Asia's doorstep. Both were American administered territories at the time. With the development of aircraft carriers the oceans were no longer serious protection. Of course, many people have taken a similar attitude in more recent years. With the demise of the USSR, they believed that there were no more serious enemies to deal with. They forgot the one most important rule of international political reality: Throughout the history of humankind there have always been troublemakers – people who wanted to engage in conquest for its own sake, or for self aggrandizement. The same is true, today.
Isolationism is wonderful for a nation that has everything it needs on its own. If it doesn't need to buy from anyone else, never needs to sell any goods, never has any reason to care about what is going on somewhere else, it can get away with that. But it has its drawbacks. Just ask the Japanese who had kept themselves apart while the rest of the world discovered firearms, steam power, and a wide variety of other things. They were so impressed by the progress of the United States that they took up baseball as a part of their modernization process. Of course, the change wasn't easy. They had to experience the near civil war known as the Bakumatsu before a stable popular government could be established, and even that was not one of their best efforts, as it led, eventually, to imperialistic ambitions and the debacle of Japanese participation in World War II.
In today's world the idea of isolationism sounds appealing. Slam the door on the rest of the world, and go our own way. Let everyone else take care of their own problems. Unfortunately, it simply doesn't work any longer, if it ever did. The national economy has too many international connections to make isolation practical. Oil isn't the only thing we import; many of our businesses and industries have international ownership connections. We cannot suddenly dismantle these relationships, and even if we could, there would be no assurances that we would thereby be secure from foreign aggression unless we had a military large enough and strong enough to scare any potential troublemakers away. The problem with taking that course, is folks like Attila the Hun don't scare easily. No one expected to see Rome conquered by the Huns or Vandals, but it was. That is the way of history.
The other difficulty is that out ocean barriers are no longer sufficient. Not only can the enemy cross it, they may already have done so. And, long range missiles can be launched from anywhere. The sad fact is that we are already at war, and we cannot make it go away just by unilaterally deciding to go home. The enemy won’t take that seriously when their ambition is to rule the entire world, and we are perceived as their biggest obstacle.
Aside from the above, what Mr. Buchanan has neglected to note in the political realm is the current lack of support for Hezbollah on the “Arab street.” There are two significant reasons for this. The first is that the average Arab government knows that Israel really has no territorial ambitions; it just wants to be left alone. At the same time, the average Arab government is very concerned about Iran. They are caught up on the horns of a dilemma over this because they are not supposed to make war on fellow Moslems, but they know that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has no such qualms, certainly, in part because he considers Sunnis to be apostates and therefore outside of this protection. The second point is that Iranians are not Arabs. Because of this fact, “tribal loyalty" to Arabs kicks in. Arabs do not want Persians to rule them, or to be the dominant force in the region.
There is also a third, perhaps more important, reason. The secular rulers are learning that they can’t trust the imams to keep their business out of politics. The imams have become politically ambitious, and will seek to topple the secular governments if they can. The secular leaders are learning that the alliance they forged with the theocrats is breaking down and they must make a decision on where to cast their lot. If they go with the old ways they will likely be eliminated from history. If they turn their backs on the past and accept the changed world and new ways, they will be remembered by future generations as enlightened leaders who sacrificed their own power for the good of their people; a nice thing to see about oneself in the history texts.
The reality is that we must be involved in bringing change to that part of the world. Working with the secularists, bringing them along slowly, but surely into the 21st century will be difficult and time consuming. It may take decades, but the rewards will eventually be there.
slaib@intellectualconservative.com
http://intellectualconservative.com
Read more articles by Steven D. Laib
Isolationism is the authentic conservative position. It means that we should stay non-aligned and do not become involved in others' business.
This is the position held by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams.
The problem with the current GOP is that it is NOT conservative: it has bought into liberal Wilsonian interventionism, which is the antithesis of conservatism.
Buchanan is the real conservative.
Comment by Cato | August 8, 2006
Buchanan's biggest criticism of Bush's neoconservative foreign policy is that it is too liberal.
Conservatives, from Aristotle to modern times, have appreciated that different types of government are better suited for different cultures.
Converting the world to liberal Democracy is Wilsonian liberalism, not conservatism. "Regime Change" (Bush) comes from Marxist journals.
As I say above, Buchanan is the authentic conservative. He's the real deal.
Comment by Cato | August 8, 2006
Though I agree that isolationism would be the better course, I don't believe
it is practicable. We simply have too much money, time, manpower,
you name it, invested overseas. Not only that, but we need our personnel
at the UN, the "wretched hive of scum and villainy," to keep an eye on what
the other nations are doing. If not for our vigilance, for example, Saddam
Hussein could have gotten away indefinitely with his "oil-for-food" scam.
Finally, there is always someone who feels they have something to prove
by picking on the quiet guy, someone who invariably mistakes kindness or
courtesy for weakness. For instance, Japan's unwarranted and unoprovoked
aggression in December of 1941 came because they believed us to be weak
and without a will of our own, when in reality we simply had our own problems
at the time to deal with.
If we were able to isolate ourselves, however, with this country as polarized as
it is, we could find ourselves within fifty years in a state of genuine civil war.
Even though I believe that the global market, the UN, and everything that
goes with membership poses a clear and present danger to our sovreignty, I
believe that continuing on our present course is our only reasonable option.
Comment by Lane Russell | August 8, 2006
More often than not, I find myself in agreement with Pat Buchanan's positions, especially where foreign policy is concerned. His analysis of the "war on terror" is accurate and enlightening. I am a frequent visitor to his website. Buchanan is certainly a believer in "America First, " as am I. And yes … staying out of foreign entanglements was the position held by Washington, Jefferson and Adams. I would say that if that position is to be considered quaint and antiquated, then perhaps our 200 year old government is equally so. It worked well when the world was a slower and more honorable place. But in today's rapid-fire high tech world, what we often end up with legislatively is junk. I've often wondered if there is not something beyond politics (which often has little to do with truth, and which is nothing more than a game) - that would better serve our country and our people. I suppose if there is … we're probably not capable of it. I am frequently disgusted by the tactics of both liberals AND conservatives. Where truth is concerned, I can't possibly embrace any one particular political ideology. Whether it's liberal or conservative, if it's going to benefit everyone … if it's going to work, then let's do it. Health care is a good example. Putting ideology aside, a single-payer universal health care system is the best and most efficient way to go. Only ideology and the insurance lobby stand in the way. I consider myself "independent," although I tend to lean toward the left. But I embrace many aspects of Buchanan's conservatism.
Comment by John Ross | August 9, 2006
Firstly, for Ahab the Arab go find a dictionary and look up "Incarnation." Secondly, When The Father thinks of Himself He Sees The Son. The Love that exists between The Father and The Son is called The Holy Spirit. They are All Equal to Each Other. Can I separate your mind from your word from your actions? If you will, The Father is The Mind, The Son The Word, and The Holy Spirit are The Hands of God that keep all things alive. It's a Mystery. He has a Divine Mind. The Paradise Virgins Gang have a mind in need of a spell-checker. Satan refused to serve God because he lowered Himself to become man. You refused to serve God because He was a Jew. Now, to the matter at hand. I would like for America to stay at home and trim the lawn as well but present events in the world do not allow for it. We didn't need to go into Bosnia. Iraq should have been better thought. We must find the Jihadists and eliminate the threat they pose to the world. You know Buchanan just might have that 'refuse to serve Jews' bent that The Sheiks of The Shining Sun have…
Comment by Joseph | August 9, 2006
Ok, if you will permit me. What if the Hindu view is the correct one, in that God did not create the universe, but rather BECAME the universe … and ALL that exists is God? It would be perfectly Hindu to suggest that if you want to see the face of God, look at the person sitting across the table. Or … from the Gita: "He is wise who sees himself in all, and all in himself." If you kill another, you are also killing yourself. I am a Christian, but I have studied all the world's major religions. I am also a Jew, a Muslim and a Buddhist. I see no conflict in this.
Killing is wrong. That is a common theme premeating all the world's great religions. However, I am not a total pacifist. Defend yourself, certainly. But don't go halfway around the world looking for a fight. (The U.S. in Iraq. Al-Qaeda on 9/11.) It takes more courage to walk away. ("Turn the other cheek." A willingness to receive a blow, but not to deliver one in return. Does that NOT take courage?) But if you must fight, and there are times when you must (you're cornered and it's the last resort), NEVER accept the killing of innocents, whether those lives are taken directly or colaterally. It is simply wrong.
But that's my view. As for Pat Buchanan, I don't believe he's advocating isolationism. Someone, or rather some nation ought to be setting a truly consistent, honorable and peaceful example for the rest of the world. It has to begin at home. We should be leading. We aren't. I think THAT'S what Pat is advocating.
Comment by John Ross | August 9, 2006
Pat Buchanan is probably the smartest conservative politician out there.
In his most recent article in The American Conservative, he argues that conservatives should return to the ideas of the conservative philosopher Richard M. Weaver.
Now, if you handed George W. Bush a copy of Richard M. Weaver, he would stare at the first few pages with a blank face, look confused, put it down, turn on the TV, and watch cartoons.
Comment by Cato | August 9, 2006
As long as the USA runs an expensive empire, however benign, the country will never have the small government that all true conservatives desire. Sure, defense forces must be kept up to date and maintaining a strong navy is desired. But who runs Kosovo, Iraq, Korea or Venezuela should be irrelevant to America as long as they do not threaten our country. It is up to the people of those countries to determine their own fate. Crusades for democracy should be foreign to the conservative mind, not only because how other people in foreign lands live their lives is none of our business, but because conservatives should be skeptical of democracy as a force for conservatism.
Comment by Derek Leaberry | August 9, 2006
Pat Buchanan for president 2008!
There is a rumor that he may be running with Tom Tancredo.
Comment by Ann | August 9, 2006
Sorry guys, we cant have limited government and police the world at the same time. First , where does the federal gov't get the authority to do this ? It's not in the constitution. Second, since we believe gov't is only legit by consent of the governed, has the rest of the world consented to this? Is the USA to force its will and way on other countries? I can only see hatred for the USA generated by such a policy. What could be further from American principles than meddeling in the affairs of other countries. Americans wouldn't tolerate this from any other countries, so why do it to them? Isolationism is not the right word, respect for other people and their ways and trade is really what Pat is talking about. That brings about friendship and trust. But we cant have that with paranoid war mongers in control of our gov't.
Comment by David | August 9, 2006
I'm not surprised that Pat Buchanan is against the American and American-backed wars in the middle east- they're de-Christianizing the middle east!!! Why would Buchanan, a Catholic, support wars that have done grave harm to Catholics throughout the middle east?
It is Buchanan who understands the fine nuances of foreign policy, and the neoconservatives who think in simplistic, impractical, non-conservative terms.
Comment by Ted | August 9, 2006
Cato, I agree with you that we should stay out of others' business. But when their business affects us, it becomes our business. Thomas Jefferson sent the marines to fight the Arab pirates when he was president. "From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli…" Buchanan just has an overly expansive idea of what isn't our business. He is squarely in the camp of those who wanted us not to support Britain before we entered WWII. They were wrong back then, and he is wrong now. Islamo facsism cannot be ignored. Sticking our head in the sand will not make them leave us alone.
Comment by M. Ray Johnson | August 10, 2006
First, let me say congratulate Steven Laib for a very well written piece. I really enjoyed reading it.
Second, I would like to respond to Cato who argued that Pat was a "real" and "authentic" conservative.
There are two groups within the republican party called Neocons (who believe in interventionalism)
and Paleocons (who, like Pat, believe in isolationism). Both are conservatives and should be given
respect.
Third, I would like to respond to Lane R.- In no way am I condoning what Japan did in Pearl Harborr
clearly. However, you wrote that Japan attacked us completely unprovoked and b/c they thought we
were weak and this is not true. In fact, the U.S. had declared an embargo on oil to Japan from the
Dutch East Indies. Japan was in serious trouble and struck the U.S. when they ran out of what they
perceived to be options.
Fourth, in response to Joseph—Yes, we did need to go into Bosnia and it should have happened
a lot sooner than it did. While this point can be quibbled, I believe that the U.S. has a moral
obligation to act against genocide. I realized this then I saw what happened in Rwanda. When
that progom began the world looked to us. If we choice to intervene they would have joined us.
However, Clinton was still smarting from past mistakes of his presidency and did not want the
headache so he advised Albright not to call the actions genocide until it was over and he would
get teary and apologize for not recognizing it for what it was when everyone knew what it was. When
the U.S. backed out the rest of the world followed and nearly a millon people were slaughtered with
machetes inside of churches. And when I say "people" I don't just mean young fighting age men but
women, children, and old men. (Not that any murder would have been justified No other country will
step up. Yes, we will be punished for our good deeds and good intentions. So what. Right is right.
By the way, while I do have some fondness for Pat Buchanan I have to admit that he is what I believe to be an antisemite. Just read the prologue in his "A Republic Not an Empire" if you have any doubt. It is not easy for
me to say that but it is true and it colors his views. Sorry for the reality check!
Comment by Sarah | August 10, 2006
Some fine points, Sarah, but know Buchanan was very much against going into Bosnia. (Keep in mind Clinton went into Bosnia the very day Congress relesed a report saying Chinese Nationals had bought influence in the DNC. It wasn't altruism, melodrama notwithstanding, it was the tail wagging the dog..) We cannot be the world's pastor/policeman. We should act in our interest. The Military is not a Human Service Agency. They are the Most Honorable, Most Dangerous, Most Disciplined, Highly-Trained Fighting Man Humanity has ever seen. You hug the babies, comfort the widows, and care for the elderly. The Military's job is to make it safe to do that among your own people.
Comment by Joseph | August 10, 2006
Hi Joseph,
Sure, that is a good point. However…
One, I would say that one's motive for engaging in an action does not
mitigate or negate the importance or value of the action. Sure, Clinton did not do anything
without a duplicitous ulterior motive but despite that- the action was good and moral. (even if he
was not)
Two, I would concede that I hate that we are asking our soldiers, who are noble and honorable,
to be put in a horrible situation where they have to act as police men in situation where they are
resented and put at risk. However, isn't the elimination of genocide in our global interest. I believe
that as the most powerful country in the world, with a history of interventionalism, that countries
and peoples who are being brutalized will resent and blame the U.S. if it does not step up to help.
We have the resources and influence that no other country in this world has and that means that
we have obligations and responsibilities that no other countries have. I know it does not seem fair
and that no good deed goes unpunished but look…we will be damned if we do and damned if we don't
so let's just do the right thing and at least be a moral people. That is what I am saying. I believe that
when we let evil take root- anywhere- and do not challenge it right away that it will come back to bite
us. We cannot shut our eyes and hope that it goes away. it never does and we always have to pay in
blood.
Comment by Sarah | August 10, 2006
Lane, you stated "For instance, Japan’s unwarranted and unoprovoked
aggression in December of 1941 came because they believed us to be weak
and without a will of our own,……"
Surely you remember the brave American "volunteers" named the Flying Tigers. Recruited to train and fight with Chinese Air Force they were in place and active prior to Dec 7, 1941. The Japanese were at war with China, therefore we were aiding their enemy, thus becoming an enemy also. Let us also not forget the fact that the US initiated an oil embargo of Japan in July 1941. Japan's viscious attack on Pearl Harbor was a reaction by a Japanese government that was only protecting its oil interests. This is also what GW is doing in Iraq, protecting the US's oil interests. If it was not the sole reason for the war (my belief) it was at the very least a peripheral reason. You being a conservative of sound mind must surely agree with this. So, if you do not agree with the act of aggression by the Japanese to protect oil interests then surely, as not to be hypocritical, you must not support the war in Iraq, an act of aggression by the US to protect oil interests.
Also…."If we were able to isolate ourselves, however, with this country as polarized as
it is, we could find ourselves within fifty years in a state of genuine civil war." I must agree with you on this one…..see a lefty and a righty CAN agree…..maybe things are not all lost!!!! We must take a long hard look at how we have become polarized. I believe we have let the politicians drive a wedge between Americans, telling us we need to be left or right. By allowing them to sell us on ideology and rhetoric we have becomed snowed into believing there is only one correct point of view…left or right. By allowing ourselves to become trapped by blind partisanship and ideology we have failed as true American patriots. As Mr. Ross said "Where truth is concerned, I can’t possibly embrace any one particular political ideology. Whether it’s liberal or conservative, if it’s going to benefit everyone.… if it’s going to work, then let’s do it."
Comment by LyonBrave | August 10, 2006
The biggest problem with neoconservatives is that they "have mistaken Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States." - Russell Kirk
Comment by Don | August 10, 2006
Sarah, regarding your point about Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, I don't
believe that the embargo alone was adequate provocation for their actions.
When I wrote my comment, I was thinking about Yamamoto's words to his
superiors, about how if they insisted on striking the US that they would
waken a sleeping giant. The Japanese would not have bombed us unless
they thought they could get away with it. Had they been able to forsee the
result, they would have sought alternative means. In this case I must stand by
what I've written.
Lyonbrave, thank you for the bit about the "Flying Tigers," this is the first time
I had heard of them, and our aid to China at the time could likely be considered
a justification for declaration of war. However, I must also stand by my point
made earlier, that if Japan could have seen the outcome of her actions, she
would not have provoked us so egregiously. Also, let us not forget that
the Japanese at this time were in an unnecessarily bloody and aggressive war
of conquest, with human rights abuses that almost made the Nazi atrocities
pale by comparison. The issue with Japan was not the protection of "oil interests"
but of the domination of all of Asia, and to focus on such a narrow point
while insinuating "hypocrisy" on my part is not at all intellectually honest, nor
is it appreciated. As to protecting our oil interests, as many have asserted is the
motivation for our military intervention in Iraq, I cannot help thinking that
our oil interests would be much better served and protected by allowing new
refineries to be built, allowing companies to drill offshore like our competitors
are doing, opening up the oil reserves in ANWAR, and making deals with the
Canadians for the oil in the tar sands. If we were really desperate to take over
another nations oil fields for our use, and really as focused on oil as those
accusing seem to think, then we would have had far less trouble and expense
had we attacked Venezuela. If it were really about oil, gas would not still
be three dollars to the gallon.
Comment by Lane Russell | August 10, 2006
I love this country dearly. And it troubles me that virtually everything we do; from family affairs to world affairs is now infected by the "businessman's attitude." What I mean is - we seem utterly incapable of acknowledging when enough is enough. Like the typical businessman (or the bully?), we behave as if we're bigger than we actually are. In behaving that way we create many of our own problems. It's not just that many families today are living beyond their means (the personal savings rate in the U.S. recently went negative) and that the country also is living beyond its means in terms of deficit spending, though these ought to be of genuine concern. Rather, it is the spiriting of this same attitude into the political arena and world affairs. It is unfortunate that many of us did not accept the lessons of Vietnam, or more specifically that we refuse to acknowledge that humility and strength are not polar opposites. I suppose this should be expected from men who ignore history, and who make war without ever having experienced the horrors of battle themselves.
Pat Buchanan recently said that "Intervention is NOT the cure for terrorism. It is the CAUSE." He's right! These are the words of a gifted, insightful man … an astute student of history.
Comment by John Ross | August 11, 2006
John, I am just curious but what exactly do you think the "lessons of Vietnam are?" I am willing to bet that we see this issue differently. Yes, I would concede that people are living beyond their means. But I would point to that being part of the liberal mindset of a welfare state being in place to take care of any who need it. So why be responsible right? Further, the spending concern is all well and good until it comes to social spending where more is always better- RIGHT! I have no problem spending money for the protection of this nation. That is the only reason that there should be massive spending. It is critical for our self-preservation. To address your concerns about the U.S. meddling in other country’s affairs when we are really weak- this is not true. We could have and should have won Vietnam but the enemies in Vietnam knew they could not beat us militarily but they could defeat us by apathy and internal division within the country. It was thanks to many ignorant liberals who with empty heads roamed the streets in protest trying to find purpose in their empty vacuous lives. And they have blood on their hands! You sir do not know the lesson of Vietnam. You do not have a complete understanding and appreciation for the amazing and praiseworthy country that you live in. Stop lecturing others and pick up some books and learn. (Preferably not from well-known anti-semitics with a distorted and skewed view of the world)
Comment by Max | August 13, 2006
Max - the most important lesson we should have learned from Vietnam is humility. Humility is not indicative of weakness. It is a sign of strength. Even the most powerful nation on earth can't democratize or free a country at the point of a gun. Freedom and democracy have to take root from within. The founders of our own country understood that all too well, and as a result, felt strongly that this nation stay out of foreign entanglements. Our very presence in the Middle East is likely the primary cause of terrorism against us. They can't defeat us toe to toe, militarily, so they resort to terrorism. Terrorists in the Middle East don't hate us because we love freedom, as the president likes to say. They hate us simply because we're there. The fiasco in Iraq is demonstrating a lack of respect for history and a failure to learn from past mistakes. Now, as far as blaming protestors for us not winning in Vietnam (and now in Iraq?) … well, that's just BS. We lost in Vietnam for the same reason we're failing in Iraq - hubris, lack of leadership, poor planning, mission creep and little respect for the people and history of the region. Americans are not known for keeping their mouths shut for long. (Over 60% of the American people now believe invading Iraq was a mistake.) The right to dissent is deeply ingrained in us … as any student of history and every president should know.
To blame living beyond one's means on "the liberal mind-set of welfare state" is a bit of a stretch. I thought conservatives preached personal responsibility? Taking responsibility for one's actions is certainly something I believe in. If returning this nation to the law of the jungle and survival of the fittest is our goal, then I would agree that social spending be grossly reduced, and ideally … eliminated. But if our leaders truly represent all of the people and our goal as a nation is to lift all boats (a worthy goal!), then in this richest of all nations, we ought to be willing to do whatever we can. National security depends just as much on bread and butter as it does on aircraft carriers and armored humvees.
Comment by John Ross | August 15, 2006
I love to hear Pat Buchanan. I find myself agreeing with him more often than not, but isn't it too late to be an isolationist? Probably from the time we entered WWI isolationism went out the window.
Comment by Amy Garcia | August 16, 2006
Muslim terrorists do not simply hate America because "we are there." They hate us for many reasons. One, we do not permit them to commit genocide against the Jews in the Middle East. Second, they believe in an extreme form of Islam that preaches that those that do not believe and follow Islam preachings must be eliminated from the earth. They attack us because we now live in a global world with TV and satellites reaching across the globe and introducing their young people to the 21st century. They are not able to shut the rest of the world out and that threatens their way of life. They attacked us because they see us as weakening our resolve due to democrats who attack our president regardless. So power hungry that they would blame the president for attempting to defend the American people. You are a fool if you think that if we just pack up and leave that they will leave up alone. That is wrong-headed thinking.
Further, your statement about why we lost Vietnam is completely wrong. We could have won the war easily. We are the most powerful nation in the world with the most powerful and advanced weapons. Surely, you are not suggesting we could not have won that war? We lost because a “shadow party” who was actually seeking the destruction of the U.S. helped to foment anti-American and anti-soldier movements in universities demanding a PC war while the media was showing the results of a PC war and shouting that the war could never be won. See, I still remember the media before we went into Afghanistan. All we would hear was how brave and strong those people were and how the USSR got slammed there. Let me explain something; the USSR was beaten because we were there not because of a couple hundred goat herders with stingers. Funny how once we beat back the Taliban the media and dems went quiet. Funny how that works. The problem we have today is that many people have learned the lessons of Vietnam. People who seek the defeat and destruction of the U.S. have learned that they can defeat this country if they attack the morality of the war, demand a PC war, control the images coming out (i.e. of dead soldiers), and foment the youth at universities being propagandized by the very cowards who hide an academia rather than go fight for their country. They now live in universities as professors and radicalize the youth in part to rationalize their cowardly actions in Vietnam. It is the same reason you see tons of pictures about the horrors of Vietnam yet there are no movies about the massive murders / purges that happened once we left. Please read The Shadow Party by David Horowitz and get back to me.
Comment by Max | August 16, 2006
Well said Mr. Ross!!
Now, Max, you blame the liberals for our failure in Vietnam. Big surprise there. The majority of people responding on this site blame liberals for everything under the sun. I really could care less about this, for it is completely illogical to come to such a conclusion, however I must point out the fact that this is just a version of a favorite Con talking point…..playing the blame game. You(Cons) are engaging in the same thing you accuse Libs of. That is plainly hypocritical. I thought Cons were all for personal responsibility…..how is blame gaming personal responsibility? Many of you Cons need to sit in front of the mirror and really examine your ideological stances.
Max has zero facts to back up his claims of Liberal responsibility for Vietnam. However, there are plenty of facts to support Ross's claims. Max only succeeds in sounding like a dogmatic extremist (as do most others on this site….due to their lack of facts).
To repair the rift that has formed between the people of this great nation we need to engage in intellectual factual discussion about the issues this country faces; not engage in blame gaming, trivial dogmatic arguments, and blind partisanship.
Comment by LyonBrave | August 16, 2006
LyonBrave
What facts did John offer up? None, its all opinion but you view it as fact because you agree. Shocking. You cannot even come up with an intelligent argument or witty retort yourself. Instead, you just glom on to another who spouts rhetoric that you like. SHOCKINGLY- while you accuse others like myself for blind partisanship it is you who displays that very feature. Give me a break
Comment by Max | August 16, 2006
Well, Max - I think you made my point about Middle East terrorism - that they hate us because we're there. It doesn't matter if our "presence" comes in the form of troops violating their sacred soil, as support for Israel, or through television signals beamed across the world. The majority of Muslims are good peace loving people. But that doesn't mean they'll jump at the chance to be just like we are! Again, it's a matter of respecting their history, religion and culture.
Regarding the Vietnam War … of course, we could have won that war! But how about winning the peace? How about winning the hearts and minds of the people? All the bullets and bombs in the world won't win the peace. That, my friend takes weapons of a much different kind.
As I wrote earlier - show me a good book and I'll show you a good book that refutes it. Just because one is skilled in semantics and can make an effective argument doesn't necessarily mean that person is right. I've read my share of books and magazine articles. Most of what you read about politics, politicians, and the influence of wealthy and powerful men has been written before. It's rehash. As Bob Dylan wrote, "Don't follow leaders. Watch the parking meters." I have tremendous faith in the American people to reject "shadow" politics - whether it comes from the left OR the right. As LyonBrave points out - we need to engage in intellectual factual discussion about the issues this country faces, and not engage in blame-gaming, trivial dogmatic arguments, and blind partisanship.
Comment by John Ross | August 17, 2006
John,
Regarding your point about Middle East terrorism. If they hate us because we support Israel or b/c of television signals then what does that mean John? Well, the conclusion would be that in order to get them to stop trying to kill us that we need to allow them to commit genocide against the Jew and to suppress our own culture and values reflected in our movies and TVs to appease them. Uh, I am pretty sure that that is not a viable option. So now what?? The truth is, the Muslim radicals have concluded that the only way to preserve their existence is through the annihilation of both the U.S. and Israel and oh yeah every other country that does not follow their dictate. I understand that it would feel better if we sat down with them tried to "work it out" but that is just not gonna happen. Sorry but it is not.
Second, regarding your point about winning the peace. War is used to secure peace. We fought wars such as WWII in order to secure peace for the world. We fire bombed and we dropped nuclear weapons and the end result was peace. I know that this may seem counterintuitive but a student of history would surely have drawn this conclusion if he were intellectually honest. War cannot be prevented it can only be postponed to another’s advantage (just ask Israel).
Now, you quote Pat Buchanan constantly. Pat said “while the warriors of Islam are willing to suffer defeats and death—some eagerly seek martyrdom- Western Man recoils at causalities. They are full of grievance; we are full of guilt. Islam imposes faith, while the West preaches that all beliefs are equal…to avoid a clash of civilizations, Americans should back off from confrontation with the Islamic world and let these peoples work out their own destiny”. He then points out that this was done with Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, and Pol Pot. Pat Buchanan, if you would actually take the time to read him—is an apologist for genocide. He says in his book that yes, while the Germans were killing Jews and shoving them into ovens, the Germans had not or would not have attacked us thus we had no business intervening in that war- regardless of the millions who were starved and ruthlessly murdered. Do you support that point of view. You constantly demand intellectual honesty. Well, John put up or shut up.
Also, you constantly discuss the “lessons of Vietnam” and we should listen to Pat Buchanan. Well, you should listen to Pat B. if you are going to constantly quote him.
Pat says “Vietnam was a legitimate war of containment that could have been won in half the time it was fought if the U.S. had used its full conventional power at the outset, and refused to set geographic limits on the use of that power”
“there was and is an argument for Vietnam; there was never an argument for fighting it as we did. It is a mark of a Great Power that when it commits itself to war, it commits itself to victory, and all the force necessary to prevail. We did not. U.S. soldiers did not lose a major battle, but America lost- because of a collapse of will of its political elite”
You and Lyonbrave ranted that my reasoning for the antiwar protestors and media with its images had everything to do with us losing that war was wrong. Well, let me educate you on what Pat thought. He says
“Adversarial coverage of Vietnam War helped convince us we were not winning the war, and perhaps ought not. The Tet offensive, in which the Viet Cong lost tens of thousands and saw their infrastructure uprooted, was depicted as a communist triumph. Press coverage helped break Johnson’s presidency, as the country imbibed nightly journalistic skepticism as to the justice and wisdom of the cause. All added to the impatience of a nation already sickened by the lengthening casualty lists of its sons…network news shows and the proliferation of round-the clock cable news channels such as CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, and Fox News, with instant access to every home, have given a few TV producers the power to alter public opinion, almost instantly”
Also, I thought I would share a quote from Dan Rather that you might enjoy “those who control the pictures control public opinion.”
The public has already failed to detect and reject “shadow” politics so your confidence and tremendous faith would be ill-placed. Please do me the favor of not lecturing me when it is clear that you do not know that of which you speak.
Comment by Maxy | August 17, 2006
Max - The only time I actually quoted Pat Buchanan was in reference to our presence in the Middle East. I happen to agree with him on that one; that intervention is NOT the cure for terrorism, it's the cause. I think you'll find history bears that out.
I'm not an ideologue. There are times I can call myself a conservative and times I'm definitely a liberal. Like so many of us, I'm just trying to discover (or uncover?) the truth. No single individual, political party, ideology, religion, country or culture has a lock on it. I can be rather opinionated at times, especially concerning issues I've researched well or have considerable personal experience with. But I'm never so charged with emotion and hardened by preconception and prejudice that I can't freely change my mind when I learn something new. A highly respected college professor of mine taught that "a man who refuses to change his ideas stinks worse than a man who refuses to change his underwear." That was 30 years ago. Don't follow leaders. Watch the parking meters. Note: I thought a little philosophy might be more refreshing than endless political jousting.
Comment by John Ross | August 17, 2006
"Intervention is NOT the cure for terrorism. It is the CAUSE."
No, it's the existence of the state of Israel, and the West in general. Islamofacism is not embedded within a state, and the U.S.'s war with it will be around the globe, and paleoconservatives still cannot grasp this argument.
The best defense is a good offense.
Comment by Jeremy | August 18, 2006
Greetings,
In Pat's work "A Republic Not an Empire" page 227, he states "…Lodge Republicans and many progressives wanted America to play the lead role in the rebirth of Western civilization. What they would not do was surrender America's sovereignty, its freedom of action, or the hallowed tradition that Americans alone decide when, where, and whether the Republic goes to war…Wilson was defeated [in his bid to have America join the League of Nations and approve the Treaty of Versailles] because he placed his vision above his country; he failed to put America first."
Pat devoted a whole chapter to this issue entitled "The Myth of American Isolationism" in which he defined America's foreign policy as "unilateralism" rather than the pejorative term "isolationism" which historian Wayne Cole stated "…was…invented and applied in the twentieth century to discredit policies that the United States had followed traditionally during the first one-hundred and forty years of its independent history. The term was never an accurate label for United States policies."
I suppose when most people throw out the invective of "isolationist": attaching such to a person's comments etc. the standard definition comes to mind of person who wishes to cut himself off from the rest of the world. That was hardly true of America's founding fathers and I do not see such in the writings of Pat Buchanan.
Comment by Bryan Dabney | August 24, 2006