The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Reader Mail
Print Email
Text Size

Reader Mail

Power Plays

McCain creates a special pathway for Romney. Declarations of energy independence. Which party cuts and runs? Inquiring minds. Plus much more.

(Page 5 of 10)

Joseph D'Ambrosia /p> p> KNOW WHEN TO FOLD 'EM br> Re: Jeffrey Lord's A Legacy of Losing : /p>

Republican presidents have been known to "cut and run." After the Marine barracks were bombed in Beirut in 1983, President Reagan withdrew troops from Lebanon. Was this cutting and running? One could argue that our continued presence could have monitored and curtailed terrorist activity in the region, thus keeping terrorism from spreading like a cancer (and ending up on our shores on 9/11). However, Reagan was sensible enough to know that he had to concentrate on one front -- the Cold War -- and there was no public support for guerrilla war with terrorists in the Middle East.

Also, the first Bush exited Iraq prematurely, leaving Saddam in power. Was it prudence, or cowardice, or political calculation that led Bush to exit before toppling Saddam? Contrast Bush's early exit with LBJ's stubborn refusal to back down on Vietnam. It certainly wasn't a Democrat who got us out of Vietnam.

Two of the greatest wars fought by the U.S., World War I and World War II, were run by Democratic presidents. Ex-president Theodore Roosevelt advocated immediate U.S. entry into the war, and even volunteered to lead his Rough Riders into Europe. President Wilson dragged his feet, and delayed U.S. entry for almost three years, thus saving countless American lives. Who was right, the bellicose TR or the cautious Wilson?

In addition, Carter didn't lose because he wasn't hawkish enough -- he lost because the economy was in a free fall. George H.W. Bush lost his re-election bid, despite his hawkish record -- and in spite of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

George W. Bush was re-elected partly because Homeland Security and the invasion of Afghanistan prevented another 9/11. But there's no doubt that the Democratic gains in 2006 had a great deal to do with the Iraq War.

p>In sum, knowing when to stop in the face of a hopeless cause is not cowardice, it is prudence. Even the greatest military strategists in history, Napoleon and Alexander, were defeated because they didn't know when to call it quits. br> --
Page: ‹ First   3 45 6 7   Last ›

topics:
Taxes, John McCain, Bill Clinton, Business, Sports, Environment, Constitution, Military, Iraq, NATO, Immigration, Energy, Alaska, Oil

Letter to the Editor Leave a comment

Leave a Comment

N.B. We encourage readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article. Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful. (And don't feed the trolls!) Thank you.

Related Articles

More Articles From Reader Mail

http://spectator.org/archives/2007/06/08/power-plays
ADVERTISEMENT

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Who Castrated Ann Coulter?

David Catron | 2.6.12

Bigoted Barack, Red in Tooth and Clause

George Neumayr | 2.10.12

Unsafe at Any Smoke

Eric Peters | 2.10.12

Access This

Ross Kaminsky | 2.10.12

The Delousing of a Movement

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 2.9.12

The Show Me State's No Show Primary

Andrew B. Wilson | 2.10.12

Justice Ginsburg Should Resign

William Tucker | 2.8.12

No Double Play

Peter Hannaford | 2.10.12

ADVERTISEMENT