early morning, early post...

I know that it's been a couple of days since I promised to finish fisking that article, and I will do so this morning, but there's something that I need to talk about first. I was just reading VDH's latest morale booster and something at the end of it really caught my eye:

Every time the United States the last quarter century had acted boldly — its removal of Noriega and aid for the Contras, instantaneous support for a reunified Germany, extension of NATO, preference for Yeltsin instead of Gorbachev, Gulf War I, bombing of Milosevic, support for Sharon's fence, withdrawal from Gaza and decapitation of the Hamas killer elite, taking out the Taliban and Saddam-good things have ensued. In contrast, on every occasion that we have temporized — abject withdrawal from Lebanon, appeasement of Arafat at Oslo, a decade of inaction in the Balkans, paralysis in Rwanda, sloth in the face of terrorist attacks, not going to Baghdad in 1991 — corpses pile up and the United States became either less secure or less respected or both.

Bold action. The kind of thing that makes you jump back, the kind where you are unable to believe that what you are seeing is actually taking place. The kind of action that either way earns you respect, whether the situation turns out in your benefit or not. In other words, a big gigantic risk. Bold action is always a risky proposition, because you never know how the situation will turn out. But the fact that you tried, most people will look at that and say, "Well, it may not have worked, but damn, that was impressive." And really, more than anything else, that's what makes these past few years different from the past twenty, including the Reagan years. While Reagan was certainly bold, he wasn't really actively bold. He didn't pledge public support or have the mujahadeen of Afghanistan to the White House for coffe and hashish. He didn't send a couple of divisions to Nicaragua to clean up the Sandanistas, or bring down the full wrath of our military capacity upon the Libyans. He withdrew from Lebanon rather than face down the emerging threat there. Instead, really, what Reagan did was propose bold ideas. The notion that we could be defended from an ICBM attack by putting satellites in space was a bold idea. The Laffer curve was still being joked about by almost everyone who thought of themselves as "progressive" when Reagan said, you know, maybe people might actually would work more if they could keep more of their money. Hmmm. Firing the FAA union workers was while a bold action really had much more of an abstract effect because of the way that other executives (and we often forgot that the title of executive really does apply to the President) felt that they could deal with their burdensome union employees, which again had actual concrete effects. People who sucked got fired. But more of an idea. The point is that while yes, we should respect Reagan's accomplishments, and be proud of the direction he set this country on, we should see that comparatively, President Bush has been much more of a risk taker, and he has been greatly rewarded for having taken a great many risks, and he is also greatly respected for having taken those risks. He is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the most powerful man in the world and everyone knows it. While the Iranians and the North Koreans may talk a tough game, and may actually believe the adage that "the US only attacks nations that don't have nuclear weapons" they should be a little less naive. There is not a shadow of a doubt in my mind that should the only option available be an attack against either of those nations that Dubya would hesitate only to pray for forgiveness for the deaths that he knows he will cause and for the strength that he would require to see it to the end.

Additional: Something related, but aren't you always impressed by people of action? People who get up and do things and do things because they enjoy them? That the doing is the part that matters? Where does the phrase, "a man of action" come from but from people who marvel at others abilities to accomplish what they set their mind too? The same applies to international relations, a phrase that is not used enough to describe the world at large. Nations that get things done earn respect from other nations. Do you think that in ten years people will remember the minutiae that have occupied our unfocused attentions via the telescreen since 9/11? Do you think that there will ever be classes on media where people actually sit and watch twenty four hours of news from the early 21st century and decide whether or not they should be preserved but only because of the hot chick on from the three to four hour? No--because people will call this time period the End of Ignorance--a transition from Moderate Ignorance and of course, the previous era, Full Throttle Ignorance, a time period when people final began to realize that, you know, maybe it is more important in what we do than what we say and how we say it. That worrying about whether or not everyone in the room likes what I'm wearing and is going to compliment me on my hair is really not all that important. That's why I follow the German model--wear it until it absolutey has to be washed. This era is also characterized by the shrill and quickly tiring tirade of the demographically vanishing Left--Susan Estrich will be proudly displayed as one of this era's standardbearers--for embodying almost all of the most farsical notions around at the time--a tirade that seems to have no end, and will only become worse as the years roll by as the Left becomes more and more obsolete and unable to cope. But action--the bolder, the better. At least then everyone will know that we mean business.