25 Tuesday Mar 2003
Posted in Washington Times
The Washington Times
I devote my space this week to a statement I signed with 22 others just before the war started. I won’t claim that the list of signers is uniquely bipartisan in the annals of Washington, but it does show that common ground need not be obtained at the expense of clarity. The statement contains an unequivocal endorsement of military action and an equally unequivocal vision of what must happen afterward.
18 Tuesday Mar 2003
Posted in Washington Times
The Washington Times
The only time I ever saw Zoran Djindjic, the prime minister of Serbia who was assassinated as he stepped out of a car in front of his Belgrade office last week, was at an off-the-record appearance he made in Washington not long after Slobodan Milosevic gave up as ruler of Yugoslavia. One appearance was enough, however, for him to make a lasting impression as one of the most serious and brilliant politicians on the world stage. What happened last week was a timely and shocking reminder that even the serious and brilliant are sometimes not serious and brilliant enough for the tasks they face.
11 Tuesday Mar 2003
Posted in Washington Times
The Washington Times
On the question of war with Iraq, I think there are no more arguments to advance, pro or con. At this point, everything that is serious on either side of the question has been fully and competently aired. There will yet be a certain additional amount of nonsense coming out, but the serious cases are subject now only to restatement.
04 Tuesday Mar 2003
Posted in Washington Times
The Washington Times
There was no reason to be surprised by the content of President Bush’s speech last week laying out his postwar vision for a free Iraq. There is nevertheless ample reason to marvel at the scope of its ambition – and by extension, the president’s own.
25 Tuesday Feb 2003
Posted in Washington Times
The Washington Times
When top Democratic campaign operative Donna Brazile grants an interview to The Washington Times telling Democrats they had better watch how they handle their attacks on presidential aspirant Al Sharpton lest the party run the risk of losing its hold on the black vote, I think the metaphor that can fairly be applied is “going nuclear.” What is going on?
18 Tuesday Feb 2003
Posted in Washington Times
The Washington Times
In 1981-82, millions of demonstrators gathered in the streets of Western Europe to protest the planned deployment of U.S. Pershing II missiles in response to the Soviet Union’s intermediate-range nuclear weapons. The government of West Germany’s Social Democrat Chancellor Helmut Schmidt fell over the uncontainable opposition to the Pershings from the left wing of his own party. The new German chancellor was the largely unknown and untested Helmut Kohl.
11 Tuesday Feb 2003
Posted in Washington Times
The Washington Times
Eventually, the Iraq business will be over. Then it will be time for those most vexed with the Bush administration over Saddam Hussein – namely, left-wing Democratic partisans at home and an uncertain segment of opinion abroad – to find something else about which to be driven to distraction. May I suggest a closer look at a creeping Bush neo-environmentalist agenda touched upon in the State of the Union speech?
04 Tuesday Feb 2003
Posted in Washington Times
The Washington Times
I wouldn’t bet the farm on it, but in fact there is a decent chance of another Security Council resolution on Iraq – one declaring that Saddam Hussein has missed his last chance and authorizing the forcible disarmament of Iraq. If there is, it will be an amazing diplomatic achievement for the Bush administration.
03 Monday Feb 2003
Posted in Weekly Standard
Why a war against Saddam is crucial to the future of deterrence.
View this article at The Weekly Standard
THE QUESTION of what to do about Iraq–and moving down the track, what to do about North Korea–typically gets described as a choice between deterrence and preemption (or perhaps better, “prevention”). If Saddam Hussein can be contained and deterred from using weapons of mass destruction, as some contend, then there is no need to go to war against him. If, on the other hand, we cannot be confident that he can be deterred, then preventive action is necessary. Reaching the latter conclusion is generally considered a doctrinal leap–a declaration of no confidence in the theory and practice of deterrence.
This idea of a radical break with past practice and past theory is embraced by both sides–by the advocates of deterrence and by the partisans of prevention. In the case of the former, the movement from deterrence to prevention represents a rejection of time-tested means of dealing with adversaries in favor of the always risky course of waging aggressive war–and losing in the bargain the justification of necessity, thus imperiling the moral legitimacy of our cause. For the advocates of prevention, it’s good riddance to deterrence. Now that an alternative is available, who needs a doctrine that keeps the peace only at a level of utmost precariousness?
28 Tuesday Jan 2003
Posted in Washington Times
The Washington Times
Democrats have done a pretty effective job on the attack against George W. Bush over the past month. They have a decline in the president’s job-approval ratings to show for their labors. But then again, the president has not much been heard from since the pre-Christmas period, when Trent Lott’s slow fall dominated the political news. Tonight is really the night the emperor strikes back.
Tod Lindberg 