On Fri, 28 May 2004 23:06:51 GMT, Robey Price
wrote:

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus

As for Pat Buchanan, the less we say, the better.

Two for two...any you boys seen a definition of ad hominem around
here?

I didn't say that Buchanan was old or balding or even "crazy"--I
merely mentioned that his radical right, America-first, ultra
conservatism has made his pronouncements less than reliable. If I
don't find Buchanan particularly credible (his abandonment of the
Republican Party when he couldn't get a start on his quest for the
presidential nomination is an example of his self-serving attitude,)
it doesn't mean I am attacking ad hominem. I similarly might disregard
the pronouncements of Minister Farrakhan.

Here's a link you might find interesting--it's a balanced (rare that!)
discussion of the possibility of an AQ-Iraq connection.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...lndzv.asp?pg=1

But I'd say YES we were at peace up to 9/11. We chose to have our
troops or ships in dangerous parts of the world (foreign countries),
I'm not surprised there were terrorist attacks overseas...our friends
have had them for years. Remember the RV explosion at Ramstein in
front of USAFE HQ? I do.

Your first sentence says "YES" and your last sentence says "no". I
remember the explosion quite well. It occurred three weeks after I
PCS'd from Ramstein and the injured LtC was out of my shop.


You failed to grasp the intent. In very basic terms, we won the war in
Iraq, but poor conduct or bad decisions by the "good guys" in the
aftermath can lose the peace. And it won't be because folks like me
opposed "pre-emptive, nation-building, 800 pound gorilla" foreign
policy. We didn't plan to fail, but we certainly failed to plan (for
the peace).

I won't disagree on the "bad decisions" at Abu Ghraib. Lots of
failures of leadership at all levels up to brigade commander.

But the continued assertion that there was no plan for transition is
tougher to accept. Of course there was a plan--an essential element of
the Powell Doctrine is "exit strategy". The problem is that events
don't always flow exactly the way the plan predicts. If that is a
failure of leadership, then every plan ever devised exhibits the same
problem.

When the ties to AQ weren't found and the WMD stockpiles weren't
found, democracy took center stage...worthwhile but not quite the
sizzle of discovering WMD stocks. Afterall we have friends that are
not democracies...so it doesn't fit neatly into the war on terrorism
rhetoric.

Again, take a look at this:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...lndzv.asp?pg=1

Must I point out again that there was a significant event intervening
between Campaign 2000 and today? I think we all agree that
"nation-building" is not a desireable role. But, we must also agree
that in this small, inter-connected, increasingly inter-dependent
world, we must participate in efforts to enhance stability. We can't
be everywhere in the Wilsonian sense, but there are some places we
must get involved.

Again I go back to the raison d'être promulgated in gwb's 2002 State
of the Union and the absence of a smoking gun (oh yeah, one sarin
round) to show our friends and allies..."here I told you he had all
this ****, and was linked to al-Qaeda." Clearly I have a higher
threshold of proof. In the information age I expect the proof.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...lndzv.asp?pg=1

I confess to the flaw of convictions.

I do not envy the student that writes a paper opposing your
convictions. Believe me when I say that is NOT ad hominem...simply
they way I see your debating style...not your message.

I suspect you would need to talk to my students regarding that
assertion. It is a leap to unsupported conclusions. For you to extend
my debate with you on this topic to some sort of student intimidation
or doctrinaire requirements for successful grades is ridiculous.

Students are taught to think, reason, consider the various aspects of
complex political situations. They should recognize that knee-jerk
acceptance of sound-bite solutions and slogans from either the right
or the left are not accurate. As political science students they
should be learning to find the middle ground, evaluate the compromises
and build the concensus to create effective policy. They are
discouraged from exercising emotional screeds.

Probably not the way it is taught in the Ivy League, but it's what
happens where I work.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8