Amateur Megalomania

While I’m utterly disgusted with the way Bush is handling the war, I’m not giving up on the concept of engaging militant Islam aggressively.  The lesson of Iraq, to me, is NOT to go into a 1970s post-Vietnam navel-gazing huddle.

I am still 100% behind the invasion of Iraq, even if it has been botched.  I believe the best way to confront Islam is to ‘plant the flag’ over there and engage the region.  I’ve written buckets on the details behind that belief, and I’m prepared to write more buckets if needed.  Iraq was merely the most convenient nation to overturn.  They had a hostile leadership with known ties to regional terrorism with Palestine.  It was a lawless nation harboring many known terrorists.  It had continued to defy the UN on technologies inspection.  The leadership failed to account for materials in their position, as required by the UN.  While we have found a bunch of chemical artillery rounds, the WMD hasn’t turned up.  I’d still like to know about the truck conveys from Iraq to Syria in the days before the war, but our President has utterly failed to press that issue.

Iraq lined up as the easiest choice.  Invading Iran would have been a bolt from the blue (even though I think it would have been a better choice, public opinion be damned).  Syria as well, with little previous history.  Saudia Arabia is supposed to be our friend, so invading them wasn’t on the table.  But with Iraq, you already had the 1991 war, which was never officially ended.  You had plenty of pretext to go in.

I know a lot of people don’t agree with pre-emption.  I respect that.  Many think the best choice was to not invade anyone.  A few years back I would completely agree with those people.  Islamic insanity and regional butchery were unfortunate, but it wasn’t our problem. 

However, even before 9/11, evidence was mounting that some day there would have to be a reckoning.  WMD technology will filter into the hands of butchers.  Going into Iraq simply to knock off the WMD wouldn’t have been enough.  Stomping out fires isn’t enough.  We have to remove the fuel.

So going into the Middle East forces the confrontation today, while the Islamic regimes lack nuclear technology.  The plan was to establish civilization and let that force erode the barbarism of twelfth century Islam. 

That isn’t easy.  But I believe the alternative of containment leads to eventual misery as the radicals increase their capabilities.

I think reasonable people can debate this perspective reasonably. 

So, moving forward into 2008, I’m looking for a candidate that agrees with continued confrontation, agrees that the Bush handling of Iraq is not the way to continue, and has the presence and charisma to engage America and convince people that this is indeed our best course.  Every other issue is secondary.  I don’t care about party, domestic issues, gun control, abortion, and all the other September 10th crap that drove politics for so long.

As it stands today, I have to go with Rudy Giuliani who just announced as a candidate.

If you’ve heard Giuliani give a press conference, I think you’ll agree he’s a breath of fresh air after years of wooden men reciting empty positions.  The man simply ‘is’.  I think he communicates even better than Reagan, and that will be essential in the coming years.

This incident, to me, suggests he has a proper perspective on Islam.

Here’s video of Rudy talking about his intention to run.

Take a look.  Start paying attention to him.  He might be our best hope going forward.

Filed under: Politics