G-WOT, Is this true; It sounds like Bush has adopted the Kerry Doctrine now.


So John Kerry was right about the war on terror, and Bush was wrong.
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/07/so...out-war-on.html
. . . Remember last year when Kerry said that the war on terror needed to be fought just as much with intelligence and diplomacy as with the military? Remember when Bush et. al. eviscerated Kerry for being a big girlie-man for suggesting this wasn't a real man's war where we'd just send Rambo in to kill all the bad guys? Well, guess what. Now the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Rummy both agree with Kerry. . .


. . . Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution." He said the threat instead should be defined as violent extremists, with the recognition that "terror is the method they use."

Although the military is heavily engaged in the mission now, he said, future efforts require "all instruments of our national power, all instruments of the international communities' national power." The solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military," he concluded. . .


. . . To wit, the Washington Times last year, quoting Kerry and then the head of the RNC:
"In order to know who they are, where they are, what they're planning and be able to go get them before they get us, you need the best intelligence, best law-enforcement cooperation in the world," the Massachusetts senator said in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"I will use our military when necessary, but it is not primarily a military operation. It's an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement, public-diplomacy effort," he said. "And we're putting far more money into the war on the battlefield than we are into the war of ideas. We need to get it straight."

Marc Racicot, chairman of President Bush's re-election campaign, said Mr. Kerry's formula won't work. "Serving terrorists with legal papers will not win this war. This is a pre-9/11 attitude that turns a blind eye to the threats that face our country," he said.


Has President Bush adopted the methods he and his supporters ridiculed last year?

1) If not, then how does it differ from what Kerry said?

This Financial Times article would indicate that it might be true. However, there is so much death and destruction in Iraq that any attempt to shift gears seems hollow and mere rhetoric. Zelikow Article.

This is briliant!

Initially I was relieved that the administration was finally willing to wage a war of ideas and use diplomacy and cooperation to achieve our ends. I had forgotten how viciously they had attacked that concept not long ago in their anti-Kerry days....

It would be mean-spirited to do, but I think it would be interesting to drag out some quotes from Bush supporters who, in the past on these boards, had no good things to say about this policy. I can hear the responses now, "Now is a different time.." , "..diplomacy failed back then but now we have an example of our resolve to lend credence to our words" etc...

The sad reality is that we are, at least, two years behind in the GWOT (oops, SAVE now). Suddenly now we have leadership talking about cooperation, giving a voice to moderate Muslims, a smaller role for the military....

Has President Bush adopted the methods he and his supporters ridiculed last year?
I think that Bush has adopted Kerry's policy in its entirety. It was not politically expedient for him to do so earlier because Bush had a "manly-man" persona to sell to the electorate. He will be doing his absolute best to back the military out while, at the same time, avoiding any utterance of the phrase "cut and run". This is just another highwire, circus act from the White House.

1) If not, then how does it differ from what Kerry said?

Kerry was wimpy when he said it.
But really. One of the main differences is that Kerry actually stated his intended policy, not his henchmen. Bush has yet, as far as I know, to openly support this policy. He won't say a thing about it until it polls well. If no one says, "cut and run" or "what happened to Freedom Fries?" then he will join in the chorus with his harpies.

Has President Bush adopted the methods he and his supporters ridiculed last year?

Yes, for the most part I think he has. Their was a NY Times article last year (sorry, I can't link to it) in which Kerry equated the War on Terror to how he fought prostitution and of course the Bush Administration said he, "Didn't understand terrorists" "was soft on terror" "didn't take the matter serious enough." Well, turns out the policies being put into place now are pretty much the same ones that Kerry had in mind. Only time will tell how close the two policies match though. The fact that Bush is doing this now, after the election, just highlights what's wrong with politics. It makes me sick to think that he may have known that Kerry's plan or a similar plan was the most effective way to fight the WOT but he took the cowboy approach in order to win re-election. Of course Bush isn't the only person to do this. All politicians need to start doing what's best for America rather than what's best their campaign.

I'm reluctant to get involved in this thread, as it is clear from just the first couple posts that this will quickly devolve into the usual screamed rhetoric that plaques any discussion on the war on terror on this board, but....

Has President Bush adopted the methods he and his supporters ridiculed last year?

1) If not, then how does it differ from what Kerry said?

No, he hasn't. The difference is quite clear:



The following response (also from the initial post in this thread) delineates this difference:

.

In short, the war on terror was never intended as a purely military effort. In fact, extra military activities have been going on throughout the past few years. Further, it is natural that other activities would be brought to prominence as military activity began to be reduced. So, there is still a clear differentiation with Kerry's policy, and there is not even a policy change occurring in existing efforts.

I now return you to your originally scheduled program...

Then why the quip by Myers that they need to rectify the situation vis-à-vis the allocation of funding that is currently being allocated primarily to the “battlefield”? (My first attempt at grammar; be gentle. I hope I had an Ajd. In there somewhere.)

Initially that first quote by Myers had me thinking that it was Kerry who uttered it; as that’s how I remember the dialog from a year ago. I think it will be interesting to see what quotes from both Bush and Kerry surface (I’d start now, but I’m supposed to be working) and how the rhetoric from the administration today does compares to that of year ago, from both parties.

Agreed, extra-military activities are happening now. But, in the past, the Bush camp used Kerry's suggestion of doing just that against him..for example

In this article


And in this article



I think that there is plenty of evidence that Bush actually agreed with Kerry while, at the same time, he postured like a warrior just for the appeal.
In this article for example. Bush made the mistake of admitting that "the war on terror cannot be won" and had to explain his remarks in order to keep up his image.
Very interesting how, at the end of the article, he was quoted as having said:


He said this on Sept. 1, 2004 !! Clearly there was an awareness that the strictly military policy was a dead end. That is certainly not to be found in any of the rhetoric prior to the election.
Personally I find this to be significant, if not totally expected. Served the right way this policy will seem palatable to the Bush supporteres who, at election time, could not swallow it. Soon enough conservatives will be singing the praises of the French, Italian, German and other intelligence agencies. (those same people who doubted our cuses for war in Iraq)

Has President Bush adopted the methods he and his supporters ridiculed last year?

No! How does one now "adopt" (Kerry's) methods when the methods have already been in use as (GW's) stated policy since Presidents address to Congress on September 20, 2001



The perpetual question (and political argument) then becomes exactly how much time, money, and effort should be distributed among the five methods described above (diplomacy, intelligence, law enforcement, financial influence, and war)? Should we divide it (time, money, effort) up evenly with 20% for each? What is your perfect formula? Be careful now. Once you choose it, you will not be allowed to alter it without being accused of admitting failure or plaigerizing your defeated political opponents.

And the rhetoric on the campaign trail and from the echo chamber reflected this how?

One could conjecture that the ‘them fighting us here’, which occurred a few weeks ago in London was an early warning bell to the administration, that one of it’s misleading sound bites was soon going to be challenged and exposed for the foolishness that it is.


And while I’m sure the President has used Kerry type common sense in some of the speeches he gave; I’ll bet they’re as rare as any pre invasion quotes on “were invading Iraq to bring them democracy”.

I am a little confused by this topic's purpose.

At any rate it appears that if we are now moving in this direction the initial phase..war..is not only being effective but successful. I think it is. As shown in the newest edition of the Pew poll feelings and perceptions of America in the Muslim world are improving. The idea amongst Muslims that this democracy thing might be a good idea and that America honestly does wish to help them achieve it and is being successful in doing so is also a new perception. Just the simple recognition of democracy in and amongst the Muslim people of the world is proof that OBL and his gang are not succeeding at their own publicity attempts.



Pew Global Attitudes Survey

I also don't really understand how anyone can be all that surprised the pledges, promises and declarations in political speeches meant to persuade us one direction or another for only one singular moment in time are not all encompassing and forward looking.

Why should we allow one man's words at any one moment define how we should act and react to the world around us? Also is it being suggested that only our own stated perception or objective should be considered..or do we allow events and circumstances to further evolve and define our objectives?

Diplomacy? Cooperation? How, but putting a paper bag of dog doo on someone’s porch; lighting it, ringing the door bell, and then hiding behind a tree to enjoy the show?

Are you sure this “Diplomatic/Cooperation” isn’t another administration sound-bite without substance? Or like the post invasion planning of Iraq, they think they are doing it right; but are in fact screwing it up, large?

If “Diplomacy” is now going to move up the priority ladder, then why send someone that rubs people the wrong way. You get more with honey than with vinegar.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20050801...on/19416/nc:742
. . . U.S. Senator Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat who as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has been a leading advocate for bipartisan approaches to foreign policy, spoke well for America -- and for this country's shattered tradition of respect for the UN -- when he said on the day of the recess appointment: "Mr. Bolton is fundamentally unsuited for the job, and his record reveals a truly disturbing intolerance of dissent. Mr. Bolton did not win the support of a majority of members of the Foreign Relations Committee, and the Senate refused to make a final decision on this nomination pending review of documents that the Administration declined to provide in blatant disregard for the Senate's constitutional rights and responsibilities. But despite all of the warning signs and all of the red flags, the President has taken this extraordinary step to send a polarizing figure with tattered credibility to represent us at the United Nations. At a time when we need to be doing our very best to mend frayed relationships, encourage real burden-sharing, and nurture a rock-solid international coalition to fight terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the American people deserve better than John Bolton."



Edit: Now let’s look at a few of the positions of both Kerry and Bush and examine who is more likely to be the one to turn to Diplomacy, Cooperation, Better Intelligence etc.

http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Kerry.htm
Need the best intelligence and cooperation to make us safe. (Oct 2004).
Isolate the radical Muslims, not have them isolate the US. (Sep 2004)
Improve intelligence capabilities to counter terrorism. (Aug 2004)

And let’s look at what President Bush thinks.

http://www.ontheissues.org/George_W__Bush.htm
You cannot change positions in the War on Terror. (Sep 2004)
Bush Doctrine: pre-emptive strikes for US defense. (Dec 2003)
US military is key to preserving world peace. (Apr 1998)

Has President Bush adopted the methods he and his supporters ridiculed last year?

From what I'm reading on this board: no. Kerry didn't come up with the idea of using intelligence or diplomacy on the WoT. He didn't invent the ideas he just said they needed to be implemented, and I think we can all agree that intelligence was the first that that needed to be implemented.

I'm tempted to say that Bush isn't stealing any ideas or policies from Kerry, but it wouldn't be the first time that one president has taken and used the ideas of the other candidates. If I remember right Ross Perot campaigned on reducing the debt and the following term Clinton made sure to reduce the debt because it was important to the people at that time. So what I'm saying is that although Bush might be using Kerry's ideas, it's certainly not anything original that Kerry came up with. Diplomacy and intelligence have been tools of fighting and peace keeping for years; and it's also possible that Bush only ridiculed the ideas because he didn't fully understand Kerry's stance instead of Kerry understanding the WoT.

As usual, the rhetoric doesn’t match the actions. Don’t you find this a little strange


Who's Paying for Our Patriotism?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5073101080.html
President Bush assures us that the ongoing twin wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are worth the sacrifices they entail. Editorialists around the nation agree and say that a steadfast American public was willing to stay the course.

Should anyone be surprised by this national resolve, given that these wars visit no sacrifice of any sort -- neither blood nor angst nor taxes -- on well over 95 percent of the American people?

At most, 500,000 American troops are at risk of being deployed to these war theaters at some time. Assume that for each of them some 20 members of the wider family sweat with fear when they hear that a helicopter crashed in Afghanistan or that X number of soldiers or Marines were killed or seriously wounded in Iraq. It implies that no more than 10 million Americans have any real emotional connection to these wars.

The administration and Congress have gone to extraordinary lengths to insulate voters from the money cost of the wars -- to the point even of excluding outlays for them from the regular budget process. Furthermore, they have financed the wars not with taxes but by borrowing abroad.

The strategic shielding of most voters from any emotional or financial sacrifice for these wars cannot but trigger the analogue of what is called "moral hazard" in the context of health insurance, a field in which I've done a lot of scholarly work. There, moral hazard refers to the tendency of well-insured patients to use health care with complete indifference to the cost they visit on others. It has prompted President Bush to advocate health insurance with very high deductibles. But if all but a handful of Americans are completely insulated against the emotional -- and financial -- cost of war, is it not natural to suspect moral hazard will be at work in that context as well?

A policymaking elite whose families and purses are shielded from the sacrifices war entails may rush into it hastily and ill prepared, as surely was the case of the Iraq war. Moral hazard in this context can explain why a nation that once built a Liberty Ship every two weeks and thousands of newly designed airplanes in the span of a few years now takes years merely to properly arm and armor its troops with conventional equipment. Moral hazard can explain why, in wartime, the TV anchors on the morning and evening shows barely make time to report on the wars, lest the reports displace the silly banter with which they seek to humor their viewers. Do they ever wonder how military families with loved ones in the fray might feel after hearing ever so briefly of mayhem in Iraq or Afghanistan? . . .

What evidence do you have that this wasn't done? Apparently, I'm not on the mailing list where the detailed activities of all the personnel in the various intelligence and law enforcement branches are available. Could you please send me the link?



Speaking of rhetoric....I'm not really sure what you're looking for as a response here. Is this a contest to see who can come up with the most demeaning unbased stereotypes? If so, I can come up with some zingers myself, but I thought it might be best if we got the ground rules straight first. Or, and this is just a thought, perhaps we could stick to the debate questions and keep the rhetoric in check?

Every means “Every”. And as the WP Article shows, most are not impacted in the least. For example; you are here posting and not in humping the boonies in Afghanistan. Has “every” factory been re-tooled for war production? Has “every” mode of transportation been requisitioned for troop transport? Has “every’ penny in the budget been allocated to the effort?

How namy troops are in Afghanistan? 20 may 30 thousand. That doesn’t sound like “every” to me. And we haven’t even looked at the 120 thousand distracted from the War on Terror and sent to Iraq.

So now that some on the Right are advocating cooperation and diplomacy; I wonder if it’s sunk in that this means that it’s now a “Law Enforcement Issue”. And that is one thing that Kerry was savaged over.

And given the choice of an ‘eternal struggle’ against a tactic that can never be defeated, as that there will always be someone who is going to commit an act of terrorism, and having terrorism reduced to a nuisance; I wonder what many really think?

I don’t think that cooperation means that we’re going to have a ‘troop exchange’ program.