these two quotes are taken out of context

Submitted by DrRJP (United States), Dec 30, 2007 at 12:46

I read the enitre article in Foreign Affairs and everything but those two isolated statements were right on target. Diito on sending the Palestinians somewhere to the 99% of the Middle East that are Arab States. I'm not a Huckabee supporter, BUT, so far, he is the only one out of all the Presidential candidates to clearly state a foreign policy that makes any sense.

I have my concerns with his previous stands on illegal immigration -- which I know he will change after the elelction. I also did not like the pandering to the Evangelicals, but had Evangelicals not made religion an issue, neither would he. Who among those running for President hasn't pandered to special interest groups and large voting blocks? The reality is that you cannot get elected to the Office of the President without their support. If you get the support of Hispanics and Evangelicals, you're half-way there.

If what he has said below isn't just election rhetoric and he is really sincere about them, then his stock rises considerably in my mind, because other than John McCain, I cannot envision any other candidate in the White House. Also, I'm not going to waste my vote on an Independent, either.

Here are the key points that he stated in his article: "A more successful U.S. foreign policy needs to better explain Islamic jihadism to the American people. Given how Americans have thrived on diversity -- religious, ethnic, racial -- it takes an enormous leap of imagination to understand what Islamic terrorists are about, that they really do want to kill every last one of us and destroy civilization as we know it. If they are willing to kill their own children by letting them detonate suicide bombs, then they will also be willing to kill our children for their misguided cause. The Bush administration has never adequately explained the theology and ideology behind Islamic terrorism or convinced us of its ruthless fanaticism. The first rule of war is "know your enemy," and most Americans do not know theirs. To grasp the magnitude of the threat, we first have to understand what makes Islamic terrorists tick...America's culture of life stands in stark contrast to the jihadists' culture of death." "The United States' biggest challenge in the Arab and Muslim worlds is the lack of a viable moderate alternative to radicalism." Haven't you been saying the same things, Daniel?

"As president, I will not withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq any faster than General David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander there, recommends. I will bring our troops home based on the conditions on the ground, not the calendar on the wall. It is still too soon to reduce the U.S. counterterrorism mission and pass the torch of security to the Iraqis. If we do not preserve and expand population security, by maintaining the significant number of forces required, we risk losing all our hard-won gains. These are significant but tenuous." Quite a difference from the "cut-and-run" strategy of the Democrats.

"We must remember that with the collapse of the Soviet Union came the revival of Russia, which has always had both imperialist ambitions and an inferiority complex vis-à-vis the West...I see him [Putin] for what he is: a staunch nationalist in a country that has no democratic tradition. He will do everything he can to reassert Russia's power -- militarily, economically, diplomatically." Huck's also the only one who has talked about Russa. "To be sure, Pakistan is an inherently unstable country that has never had a constitutional change of government in its 60 years of existence. It has alternated between military and civilian rule, punctuated by assassinations and coups. Even during times of nominal civilian rule, the army and its affiliated intelligence service, the Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, were the country's most powerful institutions. But in the name of stability, the U.S. government has erred on the side of protecting Musharraf. We have an unfortunate tendency to confuse leaders with their countries and their citizens and to back them for too long, with too few questions asked and too few strings attached. As the Bush administration scrambled to cope with Musharraf's state of emergency last November, it became clear that we had no Pakistan policy, only a Musharraf policy." Sounds about right to me.

"The process will not be quick," Ambassador Crocker told Congress of the progress in Iraq last fall. "It will be uneven, punctuated by setbacks as well as achievements, and it will require substantial U.S. resolve and commitment." Does this sound familiar? To me, the statement could also have applied to the American Revolution, the American Civil War, World War I, or World War II. We paid a heavy price in each of those conflicts, but we prevailed. And we will prevail now. Our history, from the snows of Valley Forge to the flames of 9/11, has been one of perseverance. I understand the threats we face today. When I am president, America will look this evil in the eye, confront it, defeat it, and emerge stronger than ever. It is easy to be a peace lover; the challenging part is being a peacemaker." He certainly does not deserve the labels of "moron" and "idiot" that others have lad in him.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".