blm
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-03-09 01:55 PM
Original message |
|
Edited on Thu Dec-03-09 02:11 PM by blm
"...not really concerned about him..."
That was the real Bush Doctrine that he implemented the last 8 years in Afghanistan. The private doctrine that many of us noted even as the corporate media and the general public did not.
And that was the doctrine that most of DU argued against in 2004, 2006 and 2008. Usama Bin Forgotten....It was far more of a serious criticism than a jokeline to most of us.
I was against more troops as the answer to securing Afghanistan to the point where troops could begin to withdraw, but, it is the answer Obama decided. If he had wanted it to be perpetual war as Bush did he would have let the hawk camp have their way of much broader and fuller escalation with no withdrawal plan attached months ago.
The voices for a narrower military mission and for a timely withdrawal DID win some of their battles against the hawk camp during those months he was deliberating, and I will trust that they will continue to use their influence throughout the next 18 months to achieve their goal.
|
Oregone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-03-09 02:03 PM
Response to Original message |
|
The Bush Doctrine refers to preemptive military intervention to stop current, emerging, or possible future threats. It rests on the philosophy that the US is always right in protecting its interests in a military manner, even if the danger is not clear and present.
What you are referring to is merely an excuse Bush used to hide his failure. He rests a large part of his war justifications on the premise that he must eliminate OBL and any future threat associated with him. Because he failed, he fell back to trying to make OBL irrelevant to hide his failure.
|
blm
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-03-09 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. Yours is the definition of the public doctrine. I'm pointing to his ACTUAL doctrine |
|
that has been in operation in Afghanistan.
|
damntexdem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-03-09 02:15 PM
Response to Original message |
3. All this is true, but ... |
|
the question now is whether it's too late. Did Dubya already lose it for us, or can 'Afpakistan' still be recovered? 2004, 2006, and even 2008 are now far behind us; and 2002-2004 were the most-critical years. I'm willing to give the President a chance; but I am very afraid that this may prove to be his LBJ moment.
|
blm
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-03-09 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. Giving him that chance, too, though I think he could meet timeline measures with the troops |
|
Edited on Thu Dec-03-09 03:56 PM by blm
already there. But, my overall point is that there is a possibility of real success with an honest effort - like the honest effort that Pat Tillman and many others signed up for but never experienced.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 10th 2024, 08:43 AM
Response to Original message |