Ciao!

John Kerry actually has been pretty vocal when it comes to speaking against the Saudi royal family, like he did in his Convention speech (and the crowed went nuts). I am not a political person or whatever, but I have been keeping track of the election and I truly feel Kerry and Bush are fundamentally different. Kerry wants to roll back the tax cuts to invest it in health care, as well as eliminate tax loopholes that reward companies for shipping jobs overseas. I guess my thing is, if your happy with what Bush has done for the past four years, he is your man. I find it intriguing that Kerry wants to extend stem cell research, and the Bush administrations conservative values aren't in favor of it (although they do have some samples out there). Four more years of the same diseases under Bush, or four new years of extended research to find a cure.

Oh, but what baffles me about Bush is what he says and then what he really does. Like his little "axis of evil" speech wich included North Korea, yet we are getting ready to withdrawl 12,000 troops from the Penisula there. The Iraq war, we did removed an evil dictator wich is great, but we still went in with different reasons that proved to be false. So my thing is, when Bush speaks, when excalty are we suppose to take him serisouly. I think he is the real flip flopper.

I must have missed Kerry's statements about the Saudi family. To be fair, I just got back into the country after a ten month absence. Thanks for pointing that out.

Also, I actually oppose reducing tax cuts, since I'm a big fan of low taxes & low government expenditures. It's a question of what economic prediction models you believe in, which is mostly a question of opinion than anything else.

As for stem cell research: I agree w/ you. I think the government should open up the matter. Sure, it's important to consider the ethical implications of scientific research, but not using religious criteria (separation of church & state!). Not to mention that other countries will go ahead w/ similar research, meaning we'll just fall behind in the biotech race.

Yes, I agree that Bush's withdrawal from South Korea is somewhat puzzling. But, at the same time, I don't think we need a huge static troop presence there to threaten North Korea. The DMZ fortification line is an outdated military defense doctrine. The future relies on fast mobile military structures.

And both candidates are flip floppers, so it's difficult to know what they might do. Especiall on domestic issues. But Bush has been in office four years, so I think I've a pretty good base line on his foreign policy team's approach to things. Kerry's a big question mark for me on those things — primarily because he seems to remain overly vague on what he would do (he's even said he'd do things "different" than Bush but still about the same, whatever that means). It's the disadvantage of opposing an incumbent, I guess.

In part, I'm also tired of being forced to choose between the GOP & candidates who supposedly represent the "minorities" but who keep forward white, male, rich aristocratic candidates (OK, Clinton was the exception to that). If the Dems are the "alternative" party, why do they get most of their funding from some of the wealthiest pop/movie stars & communication megacorps? I guess I just don't trust rich white people who tell me I'm supposed to vote for them because I'm Hispanic. Just a little hang up I have. That's why I've previously voted for third party candidates.

Very nice to read your comprehensive wish list. :-)

There are many things I would like to ask you about but for now I will restrain myself to one issue.

Social security:
Do you really want to abandon all government driven measures for social security? If you are interested in my thoughts on social security you can read them here.

And all this time I thought you were more liberal (in the modern, not classical, sense). I like your list and you are right on many things. Which is why I wish a libertarian were running this time around. I think someone you will like reading is Larry Elder. Like us, he agrees with doing away with affirmative action and that we aren't "sell outs" for not having blind faith in the Democratic Party.

Another good point you emphasized was withdrawing troops from Western Europe. A guy in my history class was an extreme military buff who suggested we actually move to Eastern Europe. This move would be seventy percent cheaper for the US taxpayers (because it's cheaper to live there) and with US troops being present it would help stabalize their countries and economies.

One furhter thing I would do would be to eliminate welfare of any kind, both corporate and the kind we know of. And as difficult as this sounds, I would put tarrifs on products made by companies who use cheap foreign labor and exploit their workers as opposed to keeping jobs in the US.

And finally someone else who sees the economy as cyclical! Clinton had nothing to do with the great economy in the early 90s and neither did Engler. We were just lucky and Bill Gates and Alan Greenspan had a lot to do with it, not to mention the dot.com companies.

Your wish list is pretty comprehensive, but what scares me a little is your last paragraph.

"..... But any candidate that can address all those points to my satisfaction would be a dream come true. Otherwise, I'm left voting for the one who's least likely to utterly disappoint me."

If no candidate ever meets all of your priorities, then your are always left voting for the one who's least likely to utterly disappoint you. According to what your are saying above, that would lead you to vote for Bush, this November. Right? :-)

Yes, I would like to abandon most forms of government subsidies, both to corporations & individuals. In part, because I'm more of an "objectivist" than anything else. Also in part, because large government programs mean the government begins to have too large a role in our personal lives. I think people should have both freedom of choice & personal accountability.

And, yes, having never voted for a Republican before, this time around I'm leaning towards Bush. In 2000 I like neither Gore (a white southern conservative posing as a liberal) nor Bush (a white southern conservative posing as compassionate). But after 9/11, I was impressed w/ Bush's change. He'd campaigned in 2000 as a Hooveresque isolationist who wanted to scale back US committments overseas to focus on domestic issues. After 9/11, he became an internationalist who at least spoke about going after non-democratic, terrorist-sponsoring states, under the banner that democratization would help improve the world's safety. I was impressed w/ his language about Afghanistan & Iraq, where many of his speeches focused on the regimes' brutality & human rights record. And since I am willing to go to war of liberation on humanitarian arguments alone, I supported both military campaigns.

Kerry can still win my vote. But he's going to have to really focus (not just talk about focusing) on foreign policy, and especially the war on terror. Of course, I'm pretty happy w/ the last three years of US policy in general, so he won't be able to be very different from Bush (I really don't want him to). But he should spell things out clearly. Early in the campaign he wooed foreign leaders. Wrong! He should be wooing American voters. Being endorsed by Kim Jong Il & Chirac doesn't impress me much.

As a separate note: In my opinion, after 9/11, anyone that thinks the environment, education, the economy, or other issues are more important than the war on terror won't win my vote. What 9/11 demonstrated is that we're in a struggle for the very survival of Western, liberal civiliazation. Groups like al Qaeda don't hate us because we're American, but because we're Western (equal rights for women, religious toleration, etc.). They admit that they believe Allah calls on them to kill any non-Muslim, anywhere in the world. If bin Laden had his way, we'd all live in a theocratic totalitarian state. We are in a war for our very surival. The other issues are important, yes, but the war on terror is the most important issue of all right now.

The War on Terror is the most important issue out there, and I believe Bush has been going about it all wrong.

With all the money spent and will be spent in Iraq (including the no-bid contracts and overcharging), we could have used that money finishing the job in Afghanistan and more importantly, shoring up domestic liabilities. We still need to improve mass transit safety, better protect nuclear plants and other infrastructures, inspect all cargo entering the U.S., etc.

We were told that Iraq was an imminent threat. Obviously they were not. Did they want to produce weapons of mass destruction? Probably. But what about those countries that already definitely have these weapons? The war in Iraq took all focus away from North Korea and other countries like Iran and Syria that have al-Qaeda links.

Hindset tells us that the intelligence about WMDs was wrong, but was it exaggerated to fulfill this administration's plan to attack Iraq (which was formulated before 9/11)? This administration still tries to link 9/11 to Iraq, which there have not been any verifiable ties. These types of misleading statements, puts the U.S. out on an island.

We cannot contain this War on Terror on our own. The necessary changes that must occur in these Muslim countries, must come from within. Reforming the education system that teaches fundamentalism and hate towards the West, cannot happen from an initiative from the U.S. The very citizens of Saudi Arabia must choose to make these changes. Any leader or reform that has the appearance of being an American-lead initiatve, does not have credibility in the eyes of those countries. The regimes installed by the U.S. are seen as being puppets of the U.S.

We need the entire international community with us. The arrogance of this administration makes any cooperation much less likely, which is unfortunate.

Eduardo:

Yes, I think the Bush administration has missed some opportunities. Of course, if Kerry wins, he'll have to deal w/ those consequences same as if Bush re-wins. I've a feeling some people expect other world leaders to suddenly pretend the previous four years didn't happen; they won't. For better or worse, the Bush years did happen, we made our bed & now have to lie in it. That doesn't of course mean we must vote Bush back in, just that we have to keep that in mind (and I know you, personally, do).

And I agree that we need to pay more carefuly attention to our border security. As well as a better attention focused on Afghanistan.

But I still do believe the Iraq war will work to our advantage in the long term. Because we had legal cause for war (Hussein's regime broke cease-fire agreements), Iraq was easier to attack than, say, North Korea or Iran or other countries. Also, I think that if Iraq is successfully democratized, it will have a strong demonstration effect on other Arab countries to demonstrate that Islam & democracy aren't mutually exclusive. The point is that there was great potential there.

There's also the possibility that after Iraq, other rogue states might be more careful about their activities. After all, they know that the US is willing to go the distance, w/ or w/o the UN. Whether we like it or not, that might also have some important benefits in the long term: rogue states now believe they are in danger of being toppled if they too closely support terrorist regimes.

As for 9/11 & Iraq. I don't think the administration's been making so strong an argument for a direct link as many think. They are, however, arguing that there was some sort of link between Iraq & al Qaeda. There's evidence even going back to the Clinton administration of this. While Hussein had little in common ideologically w/ the Taliban or al Qaeda, their mutual animosity towards the west meant that they shared common friend (Hamas, Islamic Jihad) as well as information & material goods. I certainly don't know of any evidence that Hussein's regime had any involvement in the planning/execution of 9/11. But I do believe that Iraq's regime, if it managed to develop WMDs, would be willing to use al Qaeda to use them against mutual enemies.

There is one thing which I don't understand about the Bush administration and its new foreign policy.

As a direct result of 9/11 the country found itself, suddenly, vulnerable. This act of terror, in my opinion, defined Bush's entire presidency. Like Miguel said, Bush, in 2000, run with a tint of isolationism in his platform. But then came 9/11 and everything changed.

Here is what I don't understand. The attack was perpetrated by Osama and his buddies (Al Qaeda). So the natural response would be to defend ourselves against this enemy. That is why I thought the bringing down of the Taliban regime in Afganistan was the right response. Osama, after all, was training his thugs there. However, why did we really have to attack and start a war in Irak?

Alas, I am not trying to argue that removing Saddam from power was not the right thing to do. To the contrary, I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that the world is not safer without Saddam in power. But, again, why now? The primary enemy was Osama. He is the one who publicaly declared war on America. Not Saddam.

I fail to see the reason why did we have to concentrate on Irak instead of concentrating on getting that elusive rat (Osama). He should have been the primary target all along. Moreover, by attacking Saddam we distracted ourselves from getting the most dangerous enemy (Osama).

This makes me really wonder about the administrations' real intentions and policy. Are they really doing what is good for the country? or do they have another agenda?

At this point, I can't really say why are we not getting Osama. This should be our priority!

By the way, did I mention how important it is that we get OSAMA? :-)

I see your argument, I really do. But I think there's more of a "big picture" foreign policy going on (and, no, not craftedy by Bush). The Bush administration stated early on that it would do more than Clinton did for eight years (retaliate tit-for-tat). Rather, the US should aggressively counter pro-terrorist regimes. Iraq's one of those.

Also, the Wolfowitz doctrine (which is polemic, to be sure) is what drives the current policy. Wolfowitz argued that it's in the best interest of the US to support democracies, and to promose democratization in the Middle East. The argument was that al Qaeda's greatest recruitment tool was the lack of democracy in the Arab world. Arab leaders have long used scapegoating (Jews, Americans) to shift blame from their regime's problems.

I'm not sure if capturing bin Laden is our greatest priority at all anymore. He should be captured, sure. But what social forces produced him? A theocratic socio-political structure topped w/ gross political illiberalism. I think our first priority is to send promote the liberalization of the region.

Many proponents of the Wolfowitz doctrine argued along these lines. They pointed out that while building a democratic regime in Afghanistan would be good, it would lack the impact of one in an Arab country (Afghanistan's not Arab, after all). Also, they argued that democracy might be better suited for Iraq: it's large educated, middle class population, a history of secular political structures, and relatively advanced industrial levels w/ a source of significant income (oil). Also, since Hussein had violated the 1991 cease fire agreements, the US/UK were already technically at war w/ him & didn't need any other legal cause for war (I do realize, of course, that having a legal cause to war doesn't make a war "good" or "wise").

In short: I don't think the Iraq war was part of some vast conspiracy. I think it was (among other things) meant to show other similar regimes that the US was no longer following a policy of appeasement. Had we only gone after bin Laden, and not put pressure on Syria & Iran for their role in sponsoring Hamas, or attacked Iraq, this would've looked like nothing more than Clinton-era retaliation politics. Or essentially, treating the 9/11 attack as a job for prosecuting attorneys. Instead, Bush really meant that it was a war. He said it in the first few days after 9/11; not enough people understood exactly what that meant, especially when he said it would take a long, long time (I believe as much as a decade) for a war fought on many, many fronts (I don't believe Iraq's the end of it).

As for Osama ... Again, I hope we get him, try him, and let him live the remainder of his days very publicly & in a very comfortable prison cell. I don't want him to be a martyr. But. Let's say we do capture Osama. Is the war over then? Is that it? I doubt it. So let's plan on a long-term strategy.

Also, I've a pretty good feeling that we're still hot on his tail. Just because we don't hear about it in the news every day doesn't mean it's not happening. And I'm glad. I don't want our black ops teams hunting him down to have embeds w/ them giving nightly broadcasts on their position & the mission status. Secret ops, after all, are supposed to be, um, secret.

I think there is a fundamental fallacy on Wolfowitz's doctrine, as you mention it.

That is, the idea that the greater recruitment tool for Al Qaeda and any other extremist muslim group was the lack of democracy in arab nations. That is certainly not the only reason. Certainly, it was widely reported that this Iraq war has produced more jihad warriors in the last couple of years than in any other time. I mean, you even have moderate leaders in Iraq itself who are democrats but siding with the rest of the insurgents just because of the actions of the US. These people don't call the US' efforts in Iraq a "liberating war". No. they call it ocupation. These people hate the American presence.

If anything, this doctrine, has served to alienate a good amount of potential supporters within Iraq.

As for Osama, I still think he is the most significant threat to America. If you take a look at the 9/11 attacks, you can see a direct and undisputable line that directs to Osama and his buddies. He ordered the attacks (he ordered any kind of attacks, for that matter). He had direct involvement in the carrying out of the attacks. He finances it. He has thousands of people at his discretion ready to die for him, because they think he is some kind of holy man. I mean, that is power.

And, you are righ, if we capture him, I don't think this war is over, but we'd removed a big, big thorn from our feet.

I do agree with you though, that one needs to see this problem in a bigger context. Osama is not the only threat and the US needs to keep guard and be proactive (not preemptive) to fight world terror.

Talking about the big picture:

What ARE the long term strategies?
Doesn't it sound unrealistic to you to extinguish terrorism? By force, no less?

I posted some of the questions tha puzzle me here.

No, I don't think ALL Iraqis (moderate or otherwise) are turning on the US. The media, of course, is reporting a different story. But it seems evident that those opposing the US "occupation" are a minority. Many aren't even Iraqis, but foreign fighters.

And here, I think, the Iraq war offers another positive. Al those jihadists might've been going someplace else to train for terroristm. Instead, we get to fight them soldier v. soldier, which I think is better.

While I'm sure the US occupation of Iraq might promote more jihadist recruitment, I think the other reasons are more powerful still. I take al Qaeda at its word very seriously. While they do argue against the US occupation of Saudi Arabia & it's support for Israel, they also argue for the extermination of all non-muslim states/societies & the imposition of their version of sharia law worldwide. If that's the case, then we're fighting an ideological war, which is why the term Islamofascist is appropriate. What's the best way to fight a fascist power? Appeasement? Or direct confrontation?

No, I don't think we can fully eliminate terrorism. Same goes for war, poverty, disease, etc. But we can at least send a signal to other states that their support for terrorism will not go ignored or unpunished. How did the major powers end piracy on the high seas? By eventually deciding A) they would all switch to using only professional navies to fight wars & B) that they would attack any regime that harbored them. Remember the war against the Barbary pirates?

I see the occupation of Iraq as much like the occupation of Germany after WW2. And I see more parallels to that war & the events leading up to it, than to Vietnam.

I'd also like to make a comment about the French journalists in danger of execution in Iraq. The militants will supposedly execute them unless France immediately ends the ban on headscarves in public school. Whatever you think of the ban (I think it's stupid since it violates freedom of expression, but then again France is clearly NOT the US), I find it ironic that such militants are willing to execute journalists for "crimes" ranging from the occupation of Iraq to secularists laws in their own countries. I think this is evidence that al Qaeda isn't recruiting people who hate the US (or other countries) for its policies abroad, but simply for existing, for being Western, liberal societies.

In that you are right, the war in Iraq "is" keeping the jihadists busy, at least in that region. However, yes we "are" fighting them soldier v. soldier, and that is very good, as long as you and me are not the soldiers who have to fight them. My point is, one life lost is one life too many. Especially when it is not absolutely necessary.

Your third paragraph, I think, makes the point I was trying to make with my other posts. Al Qaeda and Osama are very dangerous, and as such they should to be the primary target of this war. As you mention, they profess the extremist muslim view, which by the way is just that, extremist and has nothing to do with Islam (at least that is what they say).

That is where, I think, Bush has erred. He should have gone after Osama and his band of thugs and leave Saddam for later. I've heard one general (I don't recall his name right now) say that the Iraq war diverted troops from Afganistan and thus made it easy for Osama to escape. I just have to think, if we had gone after him with all we got, we'd have had him. That would have made it so much easier. Bush would have only had to say: the job is done, now is Saddam's time.

I see what you're getting at. And, yes, I guess it's good that you & I aren't the ones fighting (although I plan on attending OCS after I finish my PhD).

But I'm not so sure the Iraq war diverted troops from Afghanistan. The search for Osama is a black ops, small special forces kind of job. The use of two divisions & a Marine contingent in Iraq hardly affected that at all. On the other hand, a very public & swift victory over conventional forces in Iraq was, in some ways, a PR stunt to show other countries & boost military morale. Speaking to many veterans of the the Gulf War (both I & II) I've gotten the impression that they're happy to see US troops get a decisive victory after a humiliating pull out in Somalia.

Perhaps going after Saddam later would've been a good idea. And (I posted about this) I also think Bush wasn't really hoping for war, but rather hoping to bluff Saddam into complying fully w/ UN resolutions. That's up for debate, of course. But waiting to go after Saddam later might not have paid off.

It's one of those questions we'll never know the answer to. Like, if the UK & France had stopped Germany by force in 1937, would they have prevented a world war? They might have been condemned later for the deaths of thousands of troops; but they'd also have prevented the deaths of millions.

I don't know, maybe I am reading too many news, but I still have the impression that Bush and his team did have the intention, from the get go, to go after Saddam. Not just because of what Clarke said, but also what Paul O'Neal had to say was very disturbing to me. But like you say, that is up for debate.

Moreover, I do hope that we get to know some day. I think if Bush loses this election, the chances that some evidence coming out to light are greater. If Bush stays in office, there is a big chance that all that evidence (documentation) will get lost under the cover of secrecy in Washington. As Trent Lott said on his Op-Ed piece in the NYT, the urge on the part of the intelligence community in Washington to classify everything, hampers the right of the people to know what is going on with its government (I am paraphrasing).

Just to make it clear. I am not an anti-Bush voter. In fact, I kind of like the guy. I think he is very "likable", as many are saying. I just don't like the people he works with (or for?). I mean, in my opinion, Chaney, Rumsfeld, Powell, "Dr." Rice and Ashcroft are not particularly sharp people. I don't like the coziness that exists between big business and Bush's team. It makes me nervous.

And lastly, yes, there are many who argue that if the Alies would have acted sooner, there was a big chance Hitler would not have started WWII. That intervention would not have had to be "force", so to speak. Rather, more diplomacy and proactive intervention. By the latter I mean, credible statements against Hitler's actions (like the invation of Poland).

I'm sure there were plans for going into Iraq prior to 9/11. In the sense that there are Pentagon contingency plans for pretty much any scenario possible. But I don't think Bush wanted to get involved in foreign policy much prior to 9/11; there's no evidence to the contrary in his behavior/rhetoric prior to then.

As for W's advisors. I really like Powell & Condi, though not so much Cheney (although his recent statements supporting gay marriage made me re-appraise him more favorably). I actually wished earlier that this would be a Bush-Rice ticket (how awesome would it be to have a black woman nominated by a major party?!).

And I agree about your assessment of WW2. There's strong evidence to suggest that allied action early in Hitler's rise to power — when he hadn't yet solidified his grip on power — would've been very effective. But in Iraq, after 12 years of toothless sanctions, how credible would a threat have been? I found an old post of mine on Bush bluffing here.