|
November 11, 2006
So the old neo-con policy of spreading democracy at the point of a gun, defining foreign policy in terms of the 'axis of evil' and not talking to Syria or Iran, is coming to an end. Complete victories is no longer an option. However, , most of the Democrat legislators voted for the invasion of Iraq and, more often than not, they complain about the conduct of the war rather than the invasion itself.
Alan Moir
Does 'stuff happens' that mean the old neocon policy of supporting Israel uncritically is going to be jettisioned? What needs to happen is a re-examination of US foreign policy to revive a bipartisanship that recognizes the simple truth that terrorism cannot be fought with state terror.
The Weekly Standard crowd are saying that Bush is not finished yet. You can't govern from Capitol Hill. The president, even weakened as Bush is, still remains the central figure in Washington. So what does the lame duck President do? Robert Kagan and William Kristol, writing the Weekly Standard, are very clear:
The president has two years to turn things around and leave a viable Iraq to the next president. It should be obvious that "staying the course" is a recipe for failure. So are politically driven exit strategies. The president is left with the choice: quit, or do what is necessary to succeed. We trust the president understands that the task before him in Iraq is to find a strategy for success.
Such a strategy would do what previous strategies have not done: provide the number of American forces necessary to achieve even minimal political objectives in Iraq. Such an effort would begin by increasing American force levels in Iraq by at least 50,000.
|
"Does that mean the old policy of supporting Israel uncritically is going to be jettisioned?"
No. Supporting Israel (uncritically) has its home in religion; misguided as it is.