From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun May 04 2003 - 19:50:30 MDT
--- Damien Broderick <damienb@unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >> > Interesting alternate history scenario. I found it amusing
> anyway.
> >> > Actually, I agree with every word in it.
>
> >> I wish I didn't agree with you.
>
> >But yes; there is something disturbingly feminine about
> >Democratic approaches to foreign policy and masculine
> >about Republican approaches.
>
> I believe you're all missing the point of the satire, which is
> cunningly to propose that had Gore been elected and his team made
> *exactly the same choices* as the Bush team, those policies would
> have been damned predictably by the `right' and applauded by the
> `left' (to use the standard shorthand so inapplicable to the USA).
I am sure that some would like to think so, however I will note that
Tony Blair, a 'leftist' PM, received unanimous support from the Tories
and only a majority of support from his own party for this war.
The real opposition to Clinton's military adventures by the right was
that:
a) as a draft dodger and anti-war protester, he didn't have the moral
mandate to lead the armed forces. Al Gore at least enlisted, went to
Vietnam, and whether he had a personal bodyguard as a private or not,
he at least served in a position of some risk. I don't think there
would be as much opposition among the armed services to a President Al
vs Clinton. The only smear on his record was that he was VP under the
serial-rapist-in-chief, which brings us to (b),
b) Clinton's military adventures seemed to be timed to coincide with
his various scandals as tactics of deflection, as well as,
c) He hamstrung our armed forces when they were in action with
Vietnam-like rules of engagement, and,
d) He hamstrung our armed forces with budget cuts that cut training,
education, pay, as well as ammo and weapons.
e) His military adventures were usually involved in areas which the US
had no national self interest, while he purposely ignored the fact that
al Qaeda had declared war on the US in 1993, because measures to fight
a war against terrorism would offend the liberal sensibilities of his
own party.
I don't think that a President Gore would enjoy nearly the same level
of support among the armed forces that Dubya does, but I don't think
he'd have a lot of problems with them, so long as none of his white
house staff called any Congressional Medal of Honor recipients "Baby
killers", as occured in the Clinton Administration.
He would certainly feel the need to demonstrate his military prowess
more, but would also likely hobble the men with more rules of
engagement. His staff would quite likely be micromanaging General
Franks on a constant basis.
=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
- Gen. John Stark
"Pacifists are Objectively Pro-Fascist." - George Orwell
"Treason doth never Prosper. What is the Reason?
For if it Prosper, none Dare call it Treason..." - Ovid
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 04 2003 - 20:01:26 MDT