Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
onetime, tell me. On the issues of Uzbek and EG alone, what do you think of the morality? Don't take Bush's aggregate and average it out because to the Uzbeki's that is no consolation.
If you are a religious man, you know that one evil deed is enough, if you don't repent for it. Electing Bush based on Uzbekistan, for me, would be a major sin.
|
I am not informed enough to make specific comment on Bush's part in these things and, in all honesty, will not cast my vote because of them.
My answer needs to stray from the thrust of this thread (creating monsters) as you bring up the reelection of Bush, so I feel I need to communicate why, at this time, I will back him in the next election. Maybe I'm out of line in going this route, but this is the route my brain started taking when you said that he should not be judged in aggregate.
I can only make a general statement of my feelings on why Bush, even with his faults, is a better choice than the alternatives. There are MANY disturbing and horrible situations in the world. Some we can exert direct control over while others we can't. Given these facts, there is no choice but to lump activities/achievements together to judge the overall level of “good” or “bad” done by an administration.
When I look at the alternatives to Bush, I see a general lack of resolve to do what it takes to fight the war on terror in the short term, and that is one of my key decision points. People can argue all they want that this war is wrong or that somehow we brought it all on ourselves, they can point to the assinine things that Bush does, they can call him stupid and a liar and whatever else they choose. But, there are two phases to the war on terror, in my mind. One is the short term. That includes attacking those institutions (whether governmental, financial, religious, etc) who encourage, support, and fund the terrorist groups who target us. These attacks need to have military, governmental, economic, and even religious components. There have to be consequences to those who are providing support, there can be no weakness in resolve for winning this war. Failure to follow through to an end in this first stage of the war will do more harm to US international effectiveness and homeland security than the backing of a hundred Karimovs.
I absolutely agree that our past actions have contributed to the current situation. I also believe that our past inaction has contributed at least as much. The short-term strategy, as I see it, is to rattle the terrorist networks. Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have helped in this regard but there is still more to do.
The second, and probably more important phase of the war on terror is the long-term strategy. Part of this is a new focus on the Middle East and international policies that support human rights, and I dare say, nation building. Certainly we are nowhere near where we need to be in supporting human rights as you point out in your examples and other examples show. We are willing to deal with China and North Korea while basically ignoring their violations. This has to change but without success in the first stage of the war, the second is sure to fail.
Is Bush the right person to lead the second phase? If I were to put money on it today, I’d say no without hesitation. But, I would also say that the alternatives to Bush for second phase success would draw the same bet and I have little belief in their short-term performance. It’s my hope that Bush will succeed in giving the US a position of strength to work from. If he is successful in creating some semblance of Democracy in Iraq (especially without full international support and virtually no support from the UN) then we have a much stronger bargaining position. I further believe that a prosperous democraticish (yeah I made it up, but I’m still not convinced that it will be a true democracy) Iraq will put pressure on surrounding countries who currently sponsor terrorism.
The reality is that the UN will not come in to help in Iraq no matter who sits in the White House. They will cut and run as soon as the “insurgents” kill some of their workers or some of their troops. This will completely undermine the slice of success we’ve had in the wot by reinforcing the terrorist belief that we have no stomach for war.
I’m sure you disagree with many points in here, and I’m glad about that. That’s all part of what makes our society interesting. But, to get back to your question, electing Bush (or any President) is not about just Uzbekistan, it’s about the aggregate and so far, for me, the aggregate of Bush outweighs anything the Dems have to offer.