Current Events — HabitableZone

Current Events » in reply to You misunderstood

You misunderstood
Robert — (archived)

I didn't say that we should wait until we're attacked. I merely said that I think that the standards for launching our own attack should be higher than "nothing".

I guess I confused you by mixing two closely-related metaphors: The image of a "quick draw" (element of time) and a "hair trigger" (element of pressure, metaphor for standards of evidence). "Hair trigger" is apt for what we're talking about: A gun whose trigger is so sensitive it goes off at the slightest jostling. A gun with a hair trigger is dangerous and often goes off by accident, hitting innocent bystanders or its owner.

You're trying to muddy the waters when you talk about the post-9/11 period in a blanket way. There were two military operations during this period. In the case of Afghanistan, Bush acted based on solid information and moved quickly. In a strange contrast, Bush took over a year to prepare an attack on Iraq based on shaky information (although it's clear now that he made his decision to attack Iraq at the same time as the Afghanistan decision).

In a calmer discussion with Frank above, I compared Bush's policies today with US policies during the Cold War. What's appropriate in the analogy is that in the early days of the Cold War there were many arguing for a preemptive attack on the Soviet Union based on exactly the fear you express today: Lack of an early-warning capability. But Truman and Eisenhower didn't lose their nerve and weren't stampeded into such a foolish course, and eventually we did develop early-warning capabilities that removed the pressure to panic and launch a preemptive attack.

Unfortunately, today, Bush seems to have already panicked and put forth a fearful doctrine of preemptive war. He doesn't seem to have the spine of Truman and Eisenhower. That's what worries me. If we could stay calm for a while longer, the analogous early warning systems we're developing today will give us the security we had in the latter phases of the Cold War. Improved intelligence, technological capabilities (means to detect WMD in transit, for example), and international police frameworks to catch terrorists, all can give us the buffer we need to feel more secure.

I can never imagine Bush speaking words like "we have nothing to fear but fear itself", and that's a tragedy. That's what we need, not "bring it on!". When Bush says things like that, it sounds like the desperate defiance of somebody who's scared shitless. People sense that Bush is afraid and lacks confidence, and that's why he doesn't have the widespread support that real leaders like FDR and Churchill had in their perilous times.

In a way I can't really blame Bush. The election of 2000 was like the election of 1928. Nobody anticipated the troubles ahead, and so the issues by which candidates were judged were banal and non-threatening; the process selected a President suited for times that suddenly didn't exist. It seems like ages ago, but in 2000 the controversies revolved around such things as fixing Social Security and by how much to increase funding for education. That's why I think that in 2004, like 1932, different and more urgent issues may well select an entirely different kind of President, one better suited for the challenges we face.

I hope so, for the sake of the country.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (91 posts)