Comments on: STRATEGIC CLARITY

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

But, Mark, that becomes rather problematic. If our choices are simply to let Bush do whatever he wants or take the job away from him--and we don't even get to know what it is he's doing, because it's a secret--then that's a rather easy choice. By and large, I think the Bush team is doing a good job. But they definitely could do a better job of explaining themselves. And, frankly, they owe us that. Sure, there are times when there will be things at an operational level that aren't for public consumption. But that can't be a blanket category.

By: Patrick Brown

Patrick Brown — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

I'm all for being tough on terrorists, but I think some of Helprin's complaints about the Bush administration are poorly thought out. For example, he says the enemy must and can be defined, so that we can know and assess his strengths. Here's Helprin's definition: "For as much as he is the terrorist who executes the strategy, he is the intelligence service in aid of it, the nation that harbors his training camps, the country that finances him, the press filled with adulation, the people who dance in the streets when there is a slaughter, and the regime that turns a blind eye." So in other words, the enemy is pretty much everybody in several large parts of the world. That's NOT definition. That's venting. It's OK for armchair generals to talk that way, but people who can order other people's deaths have to be more careful. Part of the problem may be that we're like observers staring at the sky for signs of an invader. For two years, we've been waiting for the attack that didn't come. That sky we're staring at is a projective test - it has no features so we supply meanings from inside. For Helprin, the empty sky means unseen enemies, and unseen enemies can be more awful, more powerful than real, visible enemies. But Bush isn't staring at that empty sky. He's got a telescope, and a measured response to a real enemy.

By: Winds of Change.NET

Winds of Change.NET — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Joe's Winds of War: 2003-09-15
SEPT 15/03 TOPICS INCLUDE: Fouad Ajami & Ian Buruma on anti-americanism; USA's 2 dreamworlds; U.S. State Dept a rogue agency?; Russia backs IAEA resolution on Iran; Covering up Iranian terror in Europe; Iran prepares for U.S. invasion; CIA & FBI's cult...

By: Winds of Change.NET

Winds of Change.NET — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

---

By: Alan

Alan — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

I'd say Helprin's essay is radical, not just "bold." He's taken this point of view since 9/11 and even before: that the U.S. should assemble and wield for good purposes immense military power in the world. Although there's value in critiquing the Bush administration and urging them on to bigger, bolder, more "strategic" action, it's also a fact that in our current democracy Helprin's solutions are utterly unworkable. America could not possibly assemble the national will to take those steps. Helprin is brilliant, but I think his bitter criticism of the President is overdone, and that your own points are well taken. My hope is that Bush, if re-elected, can build a stronger, tougher national will to favor action over dithering. But powerful forces are trying even now to drag him down.

By: Little Miss Attila

Little Miss Attila — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

I do not think that what we are doing now is making enemies in the sense that my liberal friends might allege. However, I think "bold" action might do so, and create, as they say, "more Bin Ladens."

And there is the national will problem. There are those who complain every time the President so much as drinks a Diet Coke, because of the aggression it shows, its unilateralism, etc.

I *did* love the image of turning the Arab-Persian cities into "molten glass." Something horrific-yet-poetic about that.

By: Scott Talkington

Scott Talkington — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

It's close to impossible for a single individual to problematique a situation as complex as the War on Terror. But from the perspective of neglected insight Helprin's contributions would be essential to building such a problematique, or thorough image of the problem, and ultimately to an effective war strategy. I agree with the comments concerning political will and feasability, but those might be more malleable than we suspect. The problem at the moment is that although there seems to be a great deal of attention being paid to technical polling and electoral strategy, that really isn't the essence of "politics." And for all this attention to detail, this administration is simply not very good at that art. If it were, it wouldn't tolerate the shoddy and amateurish media strategies being employed in the War on Terror within the Middle East theater, where we're essentially being out-foxed by practically everyone. --Scott

By: Mark Buehner

Mark Buehner — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

There is one more component to all of this that we easilly forget (and our media _much_ moreso), we don't know everything. Not even close. There are doubtlessly operations and realities going on that would have huge implications for how this war is being fought. George Bush told us so directly in his 02 State of the Union, there will be periods of time and operations that simply cannot be for public consumption. It is the only way to fight a war. We have handed the sword to Bush, our only options now are to take it back or let him continue. You cannot run a war by committee.