Newly elected presidents can be dangerous. Untested and inexperienced, they can act in the name of national security to soothe a personal insecurity. Appearing tough, they think, can make them tough. A case in point goes back 50 years ago today — the start of the Cuban Missile Crisis, which rescued a president from just this dilemma.
Early in his term, John F. Kennedy bungled the Bay of Pigs and was then roughed up by Nikita Khrushchev at the June summit in Vienna. No “cojones,” critics said. “Now we have a problem in trying to make our power credible,” Kennedy told Times columnist James Reston, “and Vietnam looks like the place.” By “our power,” he meant his own. Having dispatched a few military advisers to help ward off a communist insurgency far away, Kennedy now looked to Southeast Asia as the arena in which to show his nerve.
Comments
Carroll's piece, although I do not believe it to be his intent, shows that the reason for American's constant conflicts lay not with our stars nor with our President's, but with a misguided public. As with so many of our ills the public looks to its politicians for what ails the nation rather than looking at themselves. Each time a politicians goes bellicose, each time a pol attacks the poor, utters nonsense in defense of bigotry or misogynistic words he is merely mouthing the words the beliefs that he knows you want to hear. Each time a pol scares up a bogey man it is because he knows you want to share in that sense of power, that ability to impose your will upon the world. If you want to live in a sane world perhaps you should demand it.
This comment has been removed.
This column is a perfect example of all that is wrong with writers of PAC and Super PAC campaign ads. Designed to enrage and inflame the public, they can use defamatory half truths, twisted rhetoric and outright lies to get your vote at any price.
Carroll writes like a teenager rebel. Pick any authority figure or institution and here comes Carroll. The Catholic Church, Vatical II, and now every Republican ever elected to high office. Like communists who revise history, he goes to his thesaurus to pluck words filled with venom and ridicule. This latest diatribe sounds like a revolutionary preparing himself for the streets. Like warm up swings in Baseball he writes these beauties. "Reagan's perilous evil empire beligerance".--------------His looney-tunes invasion.-------------martial insecurity. Then on George H.W. Bush: "Bizaarre invasion".............."middle east disaster". The George W. Bush: "Horrible climax" Romney, he calls romney a fool who mistakes Obama's great wisdom. And here comes his home run swing. "Romney is flailing"..........."His rants"............He sneeringly calls"....."Romney's overt beligerance" ............and lastly his "neophyte insecurity".
Mr. Carroll is an unfortunate victim of a mental maladys that cause him to reject all conservative political leaders who are not on the leading edge of liberal, socialist movements. He is dedicated to revolutions of any sort from religions to politics. The sad truth is that he is probably effective in destroying the reputations of religious and political leaders. It may be worthy of note that his latest diety to replace his Catholic faith is Saint Barrack Obama.
In contrast he writes like the worsipper of a deity saying "obama shows restraint, prudence and character".
"Mr. Carroll is an unfortunate victim of a mental maladys that cause him to reject all conservative..." Crazy, man! From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Wonderful Maladys is a HBO television pilot written by Charles Randolph, directed by Alan Taylor and starring Sarah Michelle Gellar. HBO did not pick the series for their lineup.
This comment has been removed.
O.K. - now, grade 8 class, what is the message within the James Carroll article?
Absolutely - he is telling you to vote for Barak Obama. He is trying to scare you
into voting for Obama!
OH! I'm so Scared !
Still, I could swear there used to be a "c" in "Barack"...
Carroll please! Can you imagine the highly incompetent and inexperienced Obama leading this country through the Cuban Missile Crisis??!?!?!? We'd probably have given away half of Western Europe by the time Obama was done appeasing and pacifying them! Democrats have become highly irresponsible in the decades since Kennedy. The media needs to catch-up and recognize that!!
Dear Cantab, I don't think Mr. Carroll is scaring anyone. I have been scared of Governor Romney for years.
Any sane person should be afraid of a man who seeks confrontation with Russia and a war with Iran. But then most of these folks enjoy sending others off to war. It's the new American pasttime. It's almost as good as sports to these folks. Been there done that with this country before.
We do get such weird posts when it comes to foreign policy and Obama. I for one prefer a "conservative" approach to foreign policy. Yet what we have here is a President who time and time again is extremely expanive in projecting American power. Now for one do not like President Obama's constant use of drones and foreign adventure.
Yet oddly the so called "righties" here those who should be favoring a more "conservative" approach to foreign policy sit at their keyboard and go, "this guy is too nice", 'this guy appeases, is to "pacifying". You're supposed to be "conservatives", you're supposed to argue against foreign adventures. You're supposed to keep us out of the affairs of the Middle East of Europe. America first. Just exactly what kind of conservative is this current crop. Right, not conservatives but merely expansionists, world bully's. These new conservatives don't worry about America first, they worry about what, oh yeah economic expanison and profits.
Attaturk, your point is well taken. I do not know what conservative foreign policy looks like today. The Libertarians believe we should get out of our foeign involvement with military bases. The Republicans believe that gutting the military is a sure invitation to disaster. Democrats currently seem to believe that an oversized military can be replaced with special forces and drones. Possessing a strong military does not portend aggression toward other nations. The argument goes that the only way we can effectively assure our survival as a nation is to assure that those who would destroy us know that the fires of hell would descend on their heads. The liberal soft sell that argues that diplomacy and understanding will win the good will of those religious zealots has proven disastrous during Obama's presidency. It is not true that conservative thought seeks expansionism either militarily or economically. The evolution of China into a competing military power along with Russia still seeking its return to the world stage seems to be ignored by Mr. Obama and his Democrats. The strategic location of our military forces around the world are our only hope of maintaining a balance of power. My argument with Mr. Carroll is that he fully understands history and what was happening when former presidents Reagan and the two Bushes stood at the helm. Instead of being honest, he used inflamatory derogation to promote his liberal bias in today's world. The terms beligerance, bizarre behavior, rants, flailing and neophyte - insult the intelligence of anyone who has studied history.
This comment has been removed.
My arguement would be that you are still linving in the 20th century. The old expressions of power no longer apply. You would what exchange specialized forces, drones, for useless masses of troops. Do you truly believe in the long run the US will ever again commit huge numbers of troops on the ground. Not likely.
Again you take the simple approach to the terrorist problem. Religious zealots. While religion makes for a great talking point for the right and the left as one he dislikes religion of any sort I recognize that it is not religion at the root of our difficulties with certain segments of the Middle East.
I can comfortably say I supported RR and while not supporting Bush Sr. suported his limited actions. I did not support Jr. nor do I support any of the neo-con positions which are the positions held by Romney. Carroll's argument is pretty solid and I think you overstate it. He merely states that belligerent behaviors are often met with the real world and that we are better served when Presidential candidates don't go all machismo. Regretfully from my perspective that is exactly what people such as yourself prefer to hear.
"System" I can easily say Obama has had a far superior foreign policy than Bush Jr. Yet unlike you I disapprove of Obama's as you call "antiseptic and extrajudicial" attacks. You see I actually hold conservative positions in the area of foreign affairs and quite often in the area of economic affairs. I would hold that you and "profox" hold antiquated and politically baised views towards foreign affairs.
As to Nixon and Vietnam let me be clear. I did not support that war. I have great pride in my service and those I served with I do not take pride in what we as a nation involved ourselves in. Nor did I support Richard Nixon and his secret plan that cost so many lives. Your problem as I have said before "system" is your irrational dislike of the President, you are obsessed with man. I don't like Mitt as a man but my distaste for him does not obscure my view of the world.
Tested gravitas? Yikes!