From: pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:58:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX

In article <1992Apr13.173242.27238@udel.edu> lintz@fred.cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz) writes:
>In article <1992Apr12.002048.3807@chinet.chi.il.us> pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent) writes:
>
>>   I think describing Bush's only success as the Gulf War is incorrect.
>>I agree about China and the Japanese "trade" trip, but I think
>>his standing up to the Israel lobby and getting the Mid-East
>>Peace conference is difficult to ignore.  (Of course, maybe you
>>think he screwed up there too). 
>
>Yes, I do think he screwed up there as well, by attaching the loan
>guarantees to the settlements in the occupied lands. I agree that
>

   I meant screwed up in getting them to the table.  Not the loans/settlement
issue specifically.  


>
>>  Whether or not you agree with this issue,
>>I would hope that you would concede that it takes skilled foreign policy
>>to get it to happen.
>
>Absolutely. It was an amazing feat just getting all the parties to sit
>down together. I think the was more the results of James Baker than
>George Bush. While I don't agree with Baker politically I do think
>he has been a very skilled Secretary of State. I would say that Bush's
>only good foreign policy move has been picking Baker.  

   I don't think Clinton would appoint Baker.  Baker is an extension
of U.S. foreign policy under Bush.

>
>>  I think the Gulf War is oversimplified in general in this thread.  
>
>>  Also, no matter what you think of the Gulf War, I would think that
>>you would concede that building an international coalition is tough work.
>
>Hmmm... Well most of the people in the coaltion were already allies,
>except Syria. The reason Syria joined was because Assad couldn't
>waste a chance to get rid of his main rival and get in good with
>the Americans at the same time. 
>

   Allies does not equal ready partners of a coalition.  Read "Commanders"
for a more detailed anology, but it was no "piece of cake" to even get
Saudi Arabia to go along and Saudi had Iraqi forces forming on their border.

  Each country was its own individual problems, and they were all dealt 
with well.  Dismissing the egos and concerns of any international
coalition by saying they "...were already allies"  greatly simplifies
a difficult task.  

  It should be noted that I was not simply admiring the military venture.
I give a great deal of credit to Bush (and his foreign policy team) in
getting the UN and the economic embargo together.  Once again, whether
or not you agree with the economic embargo, this is tough to do.

  In fact, at first the Bush administration rejected the idea of an
emargo even though they thought it was the best option.  This was
not because they did not think it would work if implemented, but rather
because they thought it would be impossible to actually organize.

  Bush's initial private reaction (made public by Mr. Woodward) was
"..we just can't accept what's happened in Kuwait just because
it's too hard to do anything about."  At that time, he was also
not advocating use of military force, the embargo was his main consideration.


  This was the first time an emargo has ever been so successfully implemented,
and not just because of the Soviet Union.  This took a lot of work.

  Constant contact and assurances were required to get the coalition together
and keep it together.  

  On your other points, I'll have to let them lie.  I still think you
oversimplify the matter.  The mid-east is often a lose-lose situation, and
I'm not terribly sure this was different. I had a page and half response written
, but I realized that my response was destined to lead to one of those debates
that never dies.  Rather than take up the nets time with it, I'll email
it to you if you like.  

  However, even without that, I still stand behind the fact that
saying "Bush's only success in foreign policy was the Gulf War", is
incorrect.  I'm not sure you are the one that originally said this, but
this is the quote I was responding to.  I have a difficult time
letting such an inbalanced statement go by...


Pat
-- 
Patrick Sugent                       

pat@chinet.chi.il.us