Neocon Collapse In Washington

Do you suppose W is finally seeing a little light?

jf

No. He's just feeling a little heat.

this "neo-con" thing (a term created and used almost exclusively by the left) is a straw man. Much of what has been attributed to these certain individuals in this article and elsewhere is a fantasy, also created by the left. It seems strange that, of all these "neo-cons" who are mentioned in this article, all are still in their same positions today. The only one to have gone is the "realist" George Tenet. I am often amused by this sort of tea leaf reading by liberals.

There are those who are conservative, and those who are not.

I'm not aware of any other flavors.

Thomas Friedman was interviewed on NPR's Fresh Air yesterday. The theme of the show was outsourcing, but he had some choice words about Iraq and the mess that's been made there. This is most interesting, because he's been a hawk from day 1 of this war, very pro-invasion and optimistic about the democratization process. However, from day 1, he also expressed great worries about the preparedness of the Pentagon and particularly questioned the decision to send so few troops. Now in hindsight, he's thoroughly disgusted (as his well-documented trepidations all proved true!). One of the most interesting comments he made was that Rumsfeld's stubborn insistence on sending so few troops from the get-go was in direct defiance of Colin Powell, who he sorely wanted to dress down. Powell, of course, stood behind the doctrine of overwhelming force, while Rumdum wanted to prove the neo-con theory of shock and awe - that with high tech weaponry, the need for troops is a thing of the past. Yup, well - so much for that theory. It would be a fun little chess game if thousands of lives hadn't been sacrificed in the process.

Whether Tennet should go or not, I can't really say. But, if anyone should go (other than Bush, who will hopefully sing his swan song come November), it's Rumass.

JB, you obviously have not done much reading up on PNAC. Many of the staunch old rebublicans (Papa Bush included) have openly expressed disdain for their theories. Yet, the champions of PNAC are the very people W surrounded himself with when building his cabinet. You are in complete and total denial to dismiss this as a liberal concontion.

The Iraq war was a grand experiment. Had it succeeded, Bush may have gone down in history as some wonder president. I am sure that's what he and his advisers anticipated. The skeptics, however, saw too many gaping holes in the plan, including the rampant deception of the public in order to gain the necessary support to launch the war. So, here we are 15 months later, having been promised a short and swift victory. The skeptics are now bitter, and who knows - like Friedman said yesterday, he's not dismissing out of hand that eventually democracy will prevail in Iraq and things will take a turn for the good in the mid-East, but it sure as heck didn't go according to the game plan, and the price we're paying is collosal. Bush is a betting man - he made a huge bet, with the lives of our GIs and public coffer at stake, and he's lost.

It's time we had a more conservative person running the country.

Like I said. Pure fantasy. I will add to that, base conspiracy theories supported by nothing more than idle speculation.

you paint with a broad brush Kathyk..

I respect his opinion. I always read his columns and imagine you have hued his opinion with your colors... I don't know. My perspective is so different from yours it is hard to say.

Mr. Friedman is refreshingly original.. He is not afraid to express his opinion. As he said in an article entitled "Doing Right at Any Cost" published Sunday; "We would spell out that the war on terrorism is a long-term war on radical Isam - and that while force is necessary in that effort, it is not sufficient. We have to connect all of the above dots to strengthen Arab-Muslim moderates, because only they can take on their extremists. Unfortunately, the Bush team reacted to Sep, 11, as if all the old rules and methods had to go. I believe Sep. 11 was gigantic. But the old rule book - emphasizing allies, the Geneva Conventions, self-sacrifice, economic development, education, Arab-Israeli diplomacy - was and remains our greatest source of strength in the effort to promote gradual reform in the regions most likely to breed threats to our open society."

That just doesn't sound the Thomas I am used to.

How quickly you forget, or you haven't been listening. We were never promised any such thing. As a matter of fact, we were promised exactly the opposite.

Here's just one thing GW had to say near the start of this (11/21/01):

"Afghanistan is just the beginning on the war against terror. There are other terrorists who threaten America and our friends, and there are other nations willing to sponsor them. We will not be secure as a nation until all of these threats are defeated. Across the world and across the years, (italics mine) we will fight these evil ones, and we will win.

Great causes are not easy causes. It was a long way from Bunker Hill to Yorktown. It was a long way for the 101st from Normandy to final victory over fascism in Europe. When wronged, our great nation has always been patient and determined and relentless. And that's the way we are today. We have defeated enemies of freedom before. And we will defeat them again."

Staunch old republicans don't do the tax flip the way Papa Bush did. Fortunately his apple fell a bit further from the tree.

Don't bet on it Jack. This is a ruthless, unscrupulous bunch who will do whatever it takes to hold on to the power they now have.

Look back at Mr. Bush's most basic campaign promises last time: changing the tone in Washington, no nation building, a humble foreign policy, fair and equitable tax policies, etc. etc. All were gone within about two months of the inauguration.

Watch the behind the scenes stuff. Mr. Bush may be sounding a bit more multilateral and "stateman-like" these days, a bit more willing to work with people. But he is also saber rattling over Syria, Iran and Cuba.

Mr. Bush's policies over the past four years are leading him right to defeat -- the polls have shown this for 2-3 mnths ago. And what do we find? Sunddenly, the UN is no linger irrelevant, but central to Iraq. There is no longer an Old Europe and a New Europe, but allies to cooperate with. Blah, blah, blah.

The neocons are true believers. True believers of any stripe are dangerous people because they will do whatever it takes to enforce their beliefs. True believers arrogantly assume they are right and all others are wrong and only they can save us from our ignorance. True believers see themselves as messiahs.

Listen to what they are saying even with the defeat in Iraq. Criticism yes, but they still believe American Imperialism is the proper course -- if it is only done right. And why did Iraq go bad? Not because it was a bad policy, but because Mr. Bush caved into those who did not understand how ruthless he had to be. He spent too much time atr the UN. He was afraid oif criticism. All the excuses one gets form true believers.

Since they can never do it exactly like they want, they always blame those who made them veer a little off their predetermined path for whatever failures they have.

Watch what they are doing in areas not heavily covered -- Iran, Syria, Cuba, etc. -- and you will see them setting the stage for where they will go as soon as the President can stop pandeting to the ingorant masses after the election and get back to doing what the neocons know must be done.

Don't bet on it Jack. This is a ruthless, unscrupulous bunch who will do whatever it takes to hold on to the power they now have.[/b]

Sounds more like liberals to me.

Look back at Mr. Bush's most basic campaign promises last time: changing the tone in Washington, no nation building, a humble foreign policy, fair and equitable tax policies, etc. etc. All were gone within about two months of the inauguration.[/b]

Actually, it took eight months. September 11 happened.

Up here we call them the Liberal Party of Canada.

Apple, take a listen.

Fresh Air with Friedman

Yes, thousands. We're up to or almost up to 1,000 GIs, then you have the uncounted contractors and all the Iraqis, which I know you don't care to count - their number is well over 5,000 by modest accounts.

The reason we don't care to count the Iraqis is that, at the rate Saddam was kiling them, far more would be dead today if he were still in power.

It is easy to sit back in the comfort of hindsight and say that less troops would have been killed if we had more over there. It could just as easily be argued that there would have been more targets of opportunity for insurgents and the casualty rate would be even higher. There certainly have been no cases where our forces were overwhelmed in any conceivable way. Indeed, in all combat engagements so far our military has overwhelmingly (and lopsidedly) dominated.

Oh, but we were promised a swift victory. The quotes you give above reference the fight against terrorism, in general - which I believe, everyone will agree is going to be an ongoing fight. No, sirre, let's not be revisionist, Lindy. When Iraq was sold to Congress, ergo the American people, this is exactly what was promised.

ON THE eve of Gulf War II, Mr Richard Perle, who was then chairman of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board, predicted that unseating Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein would be 'a cakewalk'.

'Two days!' predicted Mr Bill O' Reilly, a conservative television pundit (based on the rosy forecasts of Bush's war planners , who became dubbed the cakewalk brigade)

Rumsfeld, according to military analyst Ralph Peters, downplayed the role of ground troops and argued that shock-and-awe air attacks together with efforts by small Special Operations groups would secure a swift victory in Iraq.

Here's a good synopsis from Slate of dissecting Bush's pscyho-pathology in the context of how this war has developed, starting with his twisted view that we did get swift a victory - we toppled Saddam's government; it's not his fault that all of Iraq turned us. Gee - I guess it turned out to be "shucks and awwwwww."

Magical History Tour

kathyk,

Invading and occupying Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein was essentially a cakewalk. The problems we are experiencing now are in the transition from a headless state to a new government. These problems were clearly not unanticipated. Even I saw that this would be the most difficult phase long before the invasion and I am not smarter than the people we have in our State and Defense Departments.

Actually, the Iraq War was one of the most decisive blitzkrieg style attacks ever mounted, by any nation.

Read a little military history KathyK...it'll do ya good.

Our State Department anticipated the problems and put together a plan for the transition. Rum-nut and Cheney thought it was not necessary and threw it aside. There may be a few people smarter than you in the government, but I do not count Rum-nut and Cheney among them.

jf

Where are you getting this information? I would be surprised (astonished, in fact) to see it accurately documented that Cheney and Rumsfeld just "cast aside" plans for the post-invasion and thought that such plans were unnecessary. You just cannot be serious about this.

I was talking to my brother-in-law about this -- a recently retired Marine officer who worked in requisitioning (getting the troops supplied). I asked him why they can't just put out the call now and get a bunch of people to enlist in the armed forces.

He said they could, but it wouldn't solve their current troop strength problems. He figures it would take one year from the date the military decided to expand to recruit, train and equip new forces and have them in Iraq (or anywhere else).

Which means that if the Defense Department had *listened* to those who warned that the troop strength forecasts were too low before we invaded, we would now have fresh, trained troops ready to deploy and we wouldn't have to resort to stop-loss and some of the other unfortunate moves that are now being made.

Interesting.

Cindy -- who thinks JB *is* smarter than the knuckleheads who planned this war

Article here

The article is dated, which makes it interesting reading in hindsight. It also details some of the issues surrounding Chalabi even many months ago.

An excerpt....

As one example, the Pentagon planners ignored an eight-month-long effort led by the State Department to prepare for the day when Saddam's dictatorship was gone. The "Future of Iraq" project, which involved dozens of exiled Iraqi professionals and 17 U.S. agencies, including the Pentagon, prepared strategies for everything from drawing up a new Iraqi judicial code to restoring the unique ecosystem of Iraq's southern marshes, which Saddam's regime had drained.

Virtually none of the "Future of Iraq" project's work was used once Saddam fell.

The first U.S. administrator in Iraq, retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, wanted the Future of Iraq project director, Tom Warrick, to join his staff in Baghdad. Warrick had begun packing his bags, but Pentagon civilians vetoed his appointment, said one current and one former official.
Meanwhile, postwar planning documents from the State Department, CIA and elsewhere were "simply disappearing down the black hole" at the Pentagon, said a former U.S. official with long Middle East experience who recently returned from Iraq.

Archaeological experts who were worried about protecting Iraq's immense cultural treasures were rebuffed in their requests for meetings before the war. After it, Iraq's museum treasures were looted.

Responsibility for preparing for post-Saddam Iraq lay with senior officials who supervised the Office of Special Plans, a highly secretive group of analysts and consultants in the Pentagon's Near East/South Asia bureau. The office was physically isolated from the rest of the bureau.
Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who retired from the Near East bureau on July 1, said she and her colleagues were allowed little contact with the Office of Special Plans and often were told by the officials who ran it to ignore the State Department's concerns and views.

"We almost disemboweled State," Kwiatkowski said.
Senior State Department and White House officials verified her account and cited many instances where officials from other agencies were excluded from meetings or decisions.


...and if you Google 'State Department plans for post-war Iraq" you will find many many more.

jf

JF, can you post the article?

Click on the link that says "Article here"

jf

Liberals and Pacifists shouldn't try to figure out military strategy. It's an oxymoron.

....and another multi-faceted look at the State Department / Defense Department rivalry and how it affected planning for this misadventure...


Frontline article here


and another...


Christian Science Monitor artice here


jf

Larry, I think the point is that we needed more than military strategy in Iraq and that work was never done...or more accurately, was rejected by the military planners.

jf

kathyk, you are correct that the quote I posted from GW was aimed at our long term committment to defeating terrorism (and not a direct quote about Iraq), but the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror.

We did achieve a swift, stunning tactical victory. All of the references you posted in your reply seem to be addressing exactly that -- a tactical victory. I don't think it's a surprise to anyone that the strategic part is taking longer. The "Mission Accomplished" picture that so many people seem to gleefully / mockingly post was a reference to exactly that, and nothing more, as much as some would like us to think it was.

I view the situation in Iraq -- at least in part -- as an ongoing fight against terrorism. Right now the area does seem to be attracting terrorists (and wannabes) from other countries. Better there than here. In that regard, the quote I posted earlier from GW is right on.

jf,

I can see evidence of the Pentagon rejecting the State Department plans but I see no evidence that there was no plan. Indeed, the Miami Herald article states that the Pentagon had their own planning group. If refusal to accept State's vision for what should be done in Iraq post-invasion is to be interpreted as having no plan at all then I would have to say that that is faulty reasoning. Are we to assume that State and only State can have a valid plan ? Also, one of the examples cited in the Miami Herald article of failure of the post-invasion plans by the Pentagon is the looting of the Baghdad Museum. You don't really want to go there, do you?

I see nothing more here than the usual interagency conflicts between State and the Pentagon.

JBryan

Are you seriously suggesting that what we have seen for the last 15 months are the results of a plan?

And if it is not, if there actually WAS a plan, then those who did whatever planning you think was done should have been fired long ago. They failed miserably.

I stand corrected. The Pentagon plan was that the Iraqi people would welcome us with flowers and install our puppet Chalabi as their leader, and after that all would be perfect. You are right, the evidence is that the Pentagon civ neocons DID have a plan. What a plan it was!

jf

jf, JA, apparently you believe that any war plan should proceed smoothly and in apple pie order with all eventualities predicted and accounted for. I have never seen a business plan that does that and in those people are not shooting at you. Considering the fact that we have invaded and occupied a country the size of California with, what is it, 36 million people we have done rather well.

Yes, the folks at the Pentagon were expecting for us to be greeted with flowers and kisses and we actually were (memories are short around here). What they did not anticipate (and neither did the State Department) was the considered strategy by Saddam Hussein to fall back before the invasion and proceed with a guerilla type war (he learned well from his Russian advisors).

Yes, there were unpredicted eventualities. We did not foresee "Mookie" and his band of Mahdi to raise hell. No one did. We certainly expected Al Qaeda and every Jihadist who could cross the border to enter into the fray. But, at this point, I don't see anything worse than what I would have expected before the invasion. In fact, it is even a little better than I thought it would be.

Perhaps the Defense Department neocons didn't, but I think the rejected State Departent approach made a whole lot more sense, and it was rejected out of hand because Wolfowitz didn't think of it.

jf

So, you would have supported the Iraq invasion if it had followed the state Department post-invasion plan?

If the State Department plan had been shared with the American people in an honest fashion and we embraced it, and perhaps if the UN had assessed and considered the plan and signed on.....and the gist of this agreement was that this was a cost-effective response to 9/11........YES, absolutely.

I had no doubt whatsoever that what we started in Afganistan was justified and intelligent and at that point i was close to considering myself a Bush supporter (notwithstanding his abismal environmental record).

jf

There are a lot of ifs there, jf, but I will accept that as your position. I, on the other hand, doubt that there would have been a UN blessing no matter whose plan we put before them. I also doubt if all eventualites would have been accounted for with this State Department plan or that we would not now be fretting over a raft of different unforeseen events. War is hell does not say it all. War is also chaos.

If, by design or happenstance, there actually does result a functioning democracy in Iraq (by no means a foregone conclusion) would you then say that we accomplished something worth the cost? Remember, there are ramifications far beyond the removal of a psycopath from control of Iraq. It has very great implications in terms of the entire Middle East situation. The house of saud cannot be too comfortable with it and the people of Iran would be, no doubt, more pleased than the mullahs in control (for now).

Hussein tried hard to drag Israel into the first Gulf War by lobbing scuds into the country. We know Hussein was still heavily involved in funding and planning terrorist attacks in Israel. At what point would Israel have started bombing palaces and what would have happened then? Lots of what if's, I suppose.

No.

If Saddam Hussein had developed a nuclear weapon (as we know he was fervently doing) do you think it would be, first, imperative to do something about that and, second, more easy or less easy to do so compared to before he had the nuclear weapon.

They wouldn’t have cared. They’re busy crying about North Korea’s bomb and why Bush didn’t go after them first. Or Iran. It never ends.

I’ve just returned from the Piano Forum where I read a whole thread about voicing pianos and hearing loss, etc. etc. all very interesting and much of the analysis and most of the comments were brilliant. Impossible to imagine anything like voicing pianos for top musical performance in most of the BARBARIAN portions of the world.

Then I hop over here and encounter the usual grind, except that I’m not really interested much anymore, especially trying to straighten out the LACK OF LOGICAL THINKING apparent among most of our friends on the left.

George W. Bush, whom all of you might as well know I have met and spoken with in person, is a kind, gentle, charitable man with an iron will inside. He is FAR kinder, gentler, milder and FAR MORE RESTRAINED than I would have been in his situation.

Since 9/11 this nation has been at WAR!!!

The enemy is everything John Andrew attributes to Mr. Bush and his “true believers.” In fact since JA has some claim to being a psychologist I’d like to point out to him that he was demonstrating one of the fundamental traits of psychosis; namely projection – seeing one’s own tendencies as attributes of others. All lefties are “true believers.”

Well WAKE UP, DAMN IT! The things you lefties cry about wouldn’t be possible under a Saddam Hussein regime now would they? So why do we hear so many laments following a BRILLIANT military victory that ousted him? What hardly anyone is hearing is how much nation building has actually been accomplished in Iraq already and how happy most of the people in Iraq actually are that we’re there and most of them DO NOT WANT US TO LEAVE before ORDER is restored. For the first time in most of their lives they can go about their business without fear and have a future to look forward to, things lefties take for granted as their BITTER drool spews out of their mouths!

And what of people like Muqtada al Sadr who gets so much SYMPATHETIC publicity? “Oh we didn’t predict this, nobody listened to the dangers, thousands have died since we invaded,” etc. etc. Al Sadr’s a common criminal punk deserving of a quick death, an enemy of civilization, of the establishment of a new democratic social ORDER in Iraq, an opportunist, a jackal. Justice is maybe a bit more real in a place like Iraq. Eventually, if he is caught alive, he will face a swift trial by his peers and be executed, probably a lot more slowly than he’d like to expect. Fine, may his agony equal his infamy!

Maybe they’ll be luckier in Iraq than we for not having words like “cruel or unusual punishment” instead of “the punishment shall fit the crime” written into their Constitution. Surprised that I’d find this objectionable? And in OUR Constitution?
Those words sure need to be changed. I practically spit nails when I think of how SISSIFIED we’ve become; like putting a condemned criminal to death with a lethal injection. Makes me want to puke!

We should demand an eye for an eye, etc. And contrary to half the so called “Christian” thought on the subject, Jesus never abrogated this law. If he had he would never have said, “bring those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king and SLAY THEM BEFORE MY EYES.” Luke 19:27. Look it up.

I’m getting increasing tired of, no ANGRY, at Bush bashers, people with supposedly advanced degrees thinking they’re so damn smart and clever that they can JEER at people in this government AT TIME OF WAR and get away with it, damn tired !!!

Of all those who’ve contributed to this thread, Jbryan’s thoughts and comments are closest to mine.

If I had been President on 9/11 I would have demanded far more from our FRIENDS and an ultimatum followed by a far more brutal punishment for those who harbor our enemies than Mr. Bush ever has. But he knows all too well, and good for him, that he cannot totally upset the FREE ECONOMIC ORDER that provides the civilized world with its basic and not so basic necessities. He has used incredible restraint and stayed “in the box” despite what his critics think.

9/11 was an attack on civilization itself by barbarism. Civilizations do not last long without the force to preserve them. And as for all the crybabies on the left, what they deserve is a DAMN GOOD SPANKING!!! They are and have behaved exactly like spoiled children – and they know about as much about the world as it really works.

OK folks, so continue the coffee room GRIND as you will – it sure doesn’t smell like the makings for fresh brewed on the left side of the room, more like boo poo poo to me.

PS: And if you think this was strong. I edited out all the REALLY colorful metaphors before posting. Yeah, I guess I'm beginning to take some lessons from the President's restraint.

He was NOT.

jf

David,

WOW!

Liberal bashing excerpts:

Yes, David Burton, I think this was strong. When your primary focus is how ignorant and sick-minded the liberal point of view is, you do little to advance the right's arguments other than reinforce the angriness and rigidity of thinking that many of you seem to be mired in. If in fact, you have read through the recent threads debating these issues, you would see that the CR room has largely (not entirely) dispensed with such childish sparring, of late. I hope it continues in this vein.

Jack, you are dead wrong. He most definitely was.

Improviso, I agree with you. David's post was excellent. Unfortunately, as with most attempts to instill some sense of logic into a leftist's mind, it was a total waste.

You really believe that? His nuclear program may have been in suspension temporarily until the coast was clear (and it may not have been. We don't know for sure) but he definitely had the will to produce one and vast means at his disposal to get the job done. My point was that if we had waited until he actually had one it would have then been too late. Just like with North Korea for which our options have been drastically curtailed thanks to the gulibility (or craftiness) of the Clinton Administration.

Larry,

Not a total waste at all.

1.) I enjoyed reading it. I wish I had thought of it.

2.) It pi$$ed a certain lib off.

3.) He's right.

All in all, a fine start to this Saturday morning.

David Burton is that most dangerous of political animals.

Somebody who knows of what he speaks.


No wonder he gives Kathy the willies....

David's post sounded more like an arrogant rant to me.

I was very disappointed. He usually does much better, even if he is usually wrong.

Doesn't give me the willies at all. I generally don't read his posts or Larry's - not just because they both post unusually long posts, but because it gets exceedingly boring to read the saming liberal bashing mantras. I admit that when I first joined the CR, I could be accused of doing the same thing. I have realized how ineffective and alienating it is. Remember, I'm the one accused of driving Saint Dwain from the CR, and the post that supposedly roiled him so was quite mild by comparison to David's post, above. Nonetheless, I'm always willing to admit the errors of my ways, and I have tried to refrain from bashing conservatives as a group, and making statements based on an assumption that they all think exactly alike, because - as Dwain made me realize - it is personally insulting when you belong to the group being bashed. And, my point in posting here is not to try to alienate people; rather, I genuinely enjoy the debate - when it's civil.

Then I hop over here and encounter the usual grind, except that I’m not really interested much anymore, especially trying to straighten out the LACK OF LOGICAL THINKING apparent among most of our friends on the left.

Contrary to popular rightist thinking, liberals are quite capable of logical and illogical thinking.[/b]

George W. Bush, whom all of you might as well know I have met and spoken with in person, is a kind, gentle, charitable man with an iron will inside. He is FAR kinder, gentler, milder and FAR MORE RESTRAINED than I would have been in his situation.

No offense, but since when does meeting and speaking with Bush give you any greater insight on his actions as president, than the rest of us liberals that you rail against. I have personally met LB Johnson and JF Kennedy, and Santa Claus. I can’t say that makes me better equipped to know their real persona any more than their public persona. [/b]

Since 9/11 this nation has been at WAR!!!

No kidding. Correction. Wars. Afghanistan, and Iraq, al Qaeda and affiliated groups.[/b]

Well WAKE UP, DAMN IT! The things you lefties cry about wouldn’t be possible under a Saddam Hussein regime now would they? So why do we hear so many laments following a BRILLIANT military victory that ousted him? What hardly anyone is hearing is how much nation building has actually been accomplished in Iraq already and how happy most of the people in Iraq actually are that we’re there and most of them DO NOT WANT US TO LEAVE before ORDER is restored. For the first time in most of their lives they can go about their business without fear and have a future to look forward to, things lefties take for granted as their BITTER drool spews out of their mouths!

I beg to disagree. A "shock and awe" campaign that sends Saddam’s military apparatus underground, only to emerge later to still be creating havoc a year later, isn’t exactly brilliant.

Really, you do make me laugh when you say that for “the first time in most of their lives, they can go about their business without fear”. Fear for their security is now an everyday reality for most Iraqis and American troops stationed there. Whether there is a future for Iraqis to look forward to without civil war and terrorism, is still to be determined.[/b]

And what of people like Muqtada al Sadr who gets so much SYMPATHETIC publicity? “Oh we didn’t predict this, nobody listened to the dangers, thousands have died since we invaded,” etc. etc. Al Sadr’s a common criminal punk deserving of a quick death, an enemy of civilization, of the establishment of a new democratic social ORDER in Iraq, an opportunist, a jackal. Justice is maybe a bit more real in a place like Iraq. Eventually, if he is caught alive, he will face a swift trial by his peers and be executed, probably a lot more slowly than he’d like to expect. Fine, may his agony equal his infamy!

Sympathetic publicity? From whom? While I agree he is a criminal punk, he has a militia, numbering depending on who you believe of 5,000-10,000 and most of the Iraqi police we sent to fight him joined him instead. [/b]

I’m getting increasing tired of, no ANGRY, at Bush bashers, people with supposedly advanced degrees thinking they’re so damn smart and clever that they can JEER at people in this government AT TIME OF WAR and get away with it, damn tired !!!

I’ll jeer at people in this government, AND get away with it, any time I damn well please. Last I looked, this is still a free country. The fact that this is “at time of war’’, makes it all the more important that I do so. You feel free to do the same. [/b]

If I had been President on 9/11 I would have demanded far more from our FRIENDS and an ultimatum followed by a far more brutal punishment for those who harbor our enemies than Mr. Bush ever has. But he knows all too well, and good for him, that he cannot totally upset the FREE ECONOMIC ORDER that provides the civilized world with its basic and not so basic necessities. He has used incredible restraint and stayed “in the box” despite what his critics think.

I agree it’s a good thing you are not president. What makes you believe that our president could or should make demands and give ultimatums to our allies? I might add that our allies did give us virtually everything we asked after 9/11. They only balked, at Iraq.[/b]

9/11 was an attack on civilization itself by barbarism. Civilizations do not last long without the force to preserve them. And as for all the crybabies on the left, what they deserve is a DAMN GOOD SPANKING!!! They are and have behaved exactly like spoiled children – and they know about as much about the world as it really works.

Actually David, it is you that’s doing the whining. Consider yourself spanked.[/b]

PS: And if you think this was strong. I edited out all the REALLY colorful metaphors before posting. Yeah, I guess I'm beginning to take some lessons from the President's restraint.

I too edited out the REALLY colorful metaphors.[/b]

When all is said and done, David, everything you said in your post was nothing more than your opinion, and everything I have said is my opinion.[/b]

Neither is worth a plug nickel, until you and I go to the polls and cast our vote. If the chads don’t hang, and the electronic machines work, and the Supreme Court doesn't intervene, hopefully both our votes will count.[/b]

Well, I did get some applause from the cheering section on my side, but of course it was as John Andrew suggested, an arrogant rant. OK?

But haven't we heard as many from the JEERING section on the left. I've often found it curious that where the right's usual response to the left (and mine) is to use CORRECTION where necessary, it is uniquely the left that JEERS us.

kathyk reads me, and probably some Larry too, but just hates to admit it, like good old fashioned American political conservatism is some kind of a disease. I read all of hers, and bcarey too. Of course I read John Andrew, by this time I know how he thinks like having read a book. They all write well and express themselves very well. They're a good tonic against the real situation that's out there. Sometimes they make me laugh.

But bcarey's come backs to me were particularly florid and in fact rather entertaining:

Kewl! Said with spirit too. But in your rush to spank me, you missed the most important point:

I said, "9/11 was an attack on civilization itself by barbarism. Civilizations do not last long without the force to preserve them."

THAT is the problem and the question. We are in the midst of a clash of civilizations between the Moslem world and the rest of the world. It's been a conflict that's been brewing for a very long time. It provided the reason for sending out explorers in the late 15th and 16th centuries; to find a way to trade with the East without dealing with the Arabs.

But as we all know there is an interdependency. We suck their oil and pay them good money for it and sooner or later something has to change if for no better reason than that again we may just as soon not want to deal so much with the Arabs; let them be whatever they want to be and let the rest of us continue our way of life "any way we damn well please."

Alternative energy supplies, especially for our automobiles, should be a much higher priority than it is, and it should involve not just the automotive industry, as is beginning to happen here, in Europe and in Japan, but also the petroleum industry, which needs a far-sighted goal to outfit its distribution networks for alterative fuels, and to get into the alternative energy business. I just don't understand why more isn't being done along these lines.

The government has a national security interest in seeing that America eliminate its dependence on foreign oil and driving a policy that would get both these industries to come up with a solution for the next hundred years. Theodore Roosevelt would have done this. (Remind me sometime to mention what TR would do about the pig combine's pollution in North Carolina. That's a matter that deserves tough action from the federal government. You see, I am a Teddy Roosevelt Republican more than anything else) John Kennedy might have done it. Jimmy Carter never gave it a very good try. GWB is preoccupied with precisely this conundrum because of our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. I am not very sanguine about John Kerry doing anything about it either. Ralph Nader? He hasn't the wide support from the American people he needs and I'm not sure he's the man who could do the job.

If 9/11 had happened and we weren't dependent at all on any Middle Eastern oil, we would have dealt with Saudi Arabia first. But because of oil, our hands were tied. Iraq, remember was under sanction and wasn't under full oil production when we invaded it.

So our foreign policy is determined by dependence and we are for the moment caught in a tar baby's trap. I propose that someone else who is interested in this topic begin a thread devoted to proposed strategies to get from where we are now to energy independence from the rest of the world.

Now THAT'S the thinking David Burton. Thank you.

While I may disagree with you about whether we are in the fight to the finish between two civilizations that one has to win and another loses. Your latter points,though, about energy independence, is more the long term solution to all of this, I think.

If we were independent, we would not care about what happens in the Middle East. The Islamacists could take it all over and they could sit there another 500 years running things as they want -- if the people there let them last that long. Iran's theocracy is already falling apart after only a generation.

If we were independent, we would leave the area and they would leave us alone. We could focus on securing ourselves and be protected from the extreme violence.

To me, until we are able to do this, we need only protect ourselves, not invade and occupy to impose a new cultural and political structure on the Middle East. Besides the change is coming to their society on its own. If we extricate ourselves, in a short while we will see the Middle East going the way of China -- market forces bringing about more freedom and more openness to new ideas.

While there may be a need to separate the two civilizations, there is no need for either to destroy the other.

I don't know that 'it' is a clash between two civilizations, but about a civilization that is held hostage in the last century or even millenium, whose citizens' rights are disregarded by those who would steal it's riches. They are the enemies of all mankind, and they will fall to the fairness of free enterprise and the education of those oppressed. That's why we offer democracy... not for our enrichment as some believe.

There is no debate, just a shouting match into the wind. But you can be passionate, and entertaining, as can Bcarey.

Mr. Anderson? I agree with TomK - it's fun to kick the cat around the room with him, but he is ultimately boring.

As for Mr. Burton's statements...

There are two kinds of people in this country, those who know we are at war, and those who don't have a clue. When two divergent cultures clash, only one can dominate. We shall either win, or we shall suffer.

If we lose, there will be no liberals left in this country.

The Mullahs wouldn't allow it.

kathyk, I say this as your friend. You ignore David Burton's posts at your own peril.

But if the missiles had a "UN" sticker on the side Saddam's military apparatus would have surrendered?

I tell you bcarey, the things you say here would make your son cringe with embarrassment. I can tell you that we let most of them go when we had them captured in the initial stages of the war. We did this for political reasons. Things were actually peaceful until we let them go. No thanks to the left. The left are the ones constantly trying to make us less free. I truly believe they are extremely dangerous to our society. The only people who balked at Iraq are France, Germany, and Russia. Their incestuous and illegal relationships have already been proven in the cold, clear light of day. Some have already made excuses saying "Of course they lied, all countries will protect their interests." And France's and others' were money. And what about honesty? Up until the second that France declined to go along with us publicly at the UN they promised us they would. Have you forgotten that? That is why Colin Powell was able to convince Bush to wait for the UN. Boy, was Bush stupid. He believed France.

Gryphon,

It didn't matter whose sticker was on those missles, the same thing would have happened. We thought we would shock and awe them into surrender with our bombs, when we should have known that they would just disappear into the population and bide their time to resist. Honestly, I think they are still biding their time until we're gone. Iraq will be what Iraq will be. For all intents and purposes, a civil war is being conducted there now, and we're caught in the middle.

How can you say with a straight face that it's the left that is trying to make us less free when it's the right that wants to take away the most basic of our freedoms? The freedom of a woman to choose whether or not to have an abortion, the freedom that separation of church and state gives to all religious beliefs, the freedom of citizens not to be held without being formally charged, access to lawyers, and the right to a trial, to mention a few.

Though Colin Powell did advocate going to the UN, I would submit that the real reason was Tony Blair. Blair couldn't get the go-ahead to send troops without it. While you rail against the UN, as we all do at times, it is all we have. In essense its makeup is its member countries. It can only be as good or effective as those countries allow it to be.

While you are also railing against countries like France, Germany, and Russia, do keep in mind that we needed their support, both in the form of troops and money. The US is paying dearly, because we failed to gain that support. Wouldn't it be better to ask yourself what it would have taken to get it and why we didn't get it?

Nothing I say here would make my son cringe with embarassment. I am prime number one babysitter.

Glad I provided some "entertainment" for you.

I didn't really miss your point. While I agree that 9/11 was an attack on our civilization or our way of life, I don't believe that all Muslems everywhere are out to get us, just some of them. I also agree that we have to possess and be willing to use force to protect our country, if it is necessary.

I just don't believe Iraq was the right war at the right time to do that. As I have also said, if Bush was bound and determined to invade Iraq, I at least expected some leadership in garnering support, and some competency in its execution Both have been mismanaged.

Good news! I am 100% with you on our need to reduce our dependency on oil via exploring alternative energy supplies. Good luck on getting the Bush administration to tackle this problem seriously.

I'm so glad I have not participated in the discussion up to now. I just wanted to pounce on the last sentence of the last post: "Good news! I am 100% with you on our need to reduce our dependency on oil via exploring alternative energy supplies."

What I have been hearing elsewhere is that while "both sides" agree that the U.S. needs to reduce its dependence on foreign oil, one "side" believes that means we need to start drilling new oil wells in Alaska, and the other "side" believes that means we need to stop driving SUVs (aka Stupid, Unnecessary Vehicles).

I won't tell you which "side" I agree with. Most of you can already guess.

If you don't think shock and awe was effective then you are not looking at reality. We knew this. We let them go. Don't you understand this? We had them (at least the ones in country at the time) rounded up and held at gun-point. We let the majority of them go. In this we agree 100%. We cannot, will not, and do not desire to push any specific government on them. The initial government structure (which they still have a hand in deciding) is only the interim one until they can decide as a country exactly what they want for themselves. That is as it should be. We have our hopes, but we cannot mandate. You think killing another human being is a right. Even our courts do not seem to be consistant on this. Don't think I'm solely picking on you. You are not the first Christian that I have demanded (or asked) explain his position. This issue is 100% owned by the right. We do not want to limit religious freedom, the left does. Please tell me one case in which the "Patriot Act" denied a citizen his rights. I don't know why Powell did it, but I do know that France promised Powell they would support action against Iraq for violation of UN sanctions. But they lied and backstabbed Powell at the last minute while he was totally unaware. Hell, even Woodward admits that. Tell you what, let's do away with it. Precisely! And France, a principle member, is corrupt! The UN is corrupt! You're so smart, what would it have taken to get France's support for Iraq? Considering France had illegal and unbalanced oil contracts with Iraq worth a hundred billion dollars, of course.

Here's some interesting Tid-bits from the Truthout editor on some of the leading neo-cons and their halting admission that nation building is not the cake walk they expected. Even if you have no respect for the author, the quotations merit your attention.

Neo-Cons Rethink Iraqi Fiasco
By Steve Weissman
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Thursday 26 August 2004

One of America's friskiest neo-conservatives, young Michael Rubin leads a heady life. While still in his twenties, he did his Ph.D. on Iran, Iraq, and the Middle East, sat in on meetings of the Bush transition team, and worked in the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, which repackaged as "intelligence" the fables that Iraqi exiles like Ahmed Chalabi conjured up to draw America into war.

Dr. Rubin also served in Iraq as an adviser to Jerry Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority, and boasts that he was the only one of his colleagues to live outside the heavily fortified American security bubble. This allowed him to know ordinary Iraqis, for whom he frequently presumes to speak.

His latest blast on their behalf might seem a shocker, coming as it does from a certified neo-con and appearing online last week in William Buckley's National Review. In an increasingly segmented media world, where we too easily hear and see only those views that reinforce our own, I regularly surf the other side of the political spectrum, testing my own ideas and hoping to learn something new. I rarely expect to agree.

"Losing the Shia," Rubin's headline screamed. "Iraqi Shia see a U.S. betrayal, and frankly, they should."

"Any semblance of a ceasefire evaporated today as fierce fighting erupted around the Shrine of Imam Ali, Shii Islam's holiest site," he wrote. "Even if Iraqi forces lead the charge into the Shrine of Imam Ali, Iraqi Shia will blame the U.S. for any damage. Even if a peaceful solution is found, the U.S. will have lost out."

My favorite Middle East maven, the University of Michigan's Juan Cole, could not have hit Bush any harder. Having gone into Iraq claiming to liberate the majority Shia from the Sunni dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and his Baathist Party, the U.S. has squandered any remaining good will, systematically turning the Shia against what they increasingly see as an occupying force siding with the Sunnis.

A fierce critic of those he calls the neo-con cabal, Professor Cole blames Bremer and Coalition officials for trying to arrest the populist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, thereby turning him into a martyr. Rubin, one of those officials, blames Mr. Bush's National Security Council for not allowing Bremer to bust al-Sadr sooner, when the young rebel had less support.

Professor Cole sees al-Sadr as an Iraqi nationalist, supported by poor Shia, especially among the urban young. Dr. Rubin portrays the cleric as little more than a cat's paw for Iran.

But Rubin goes every bit as far as Cole in laying the ultimate blame at the White House door. Once National Security Adviser Condi Rice took control of Iraq policy away from the Pentagon, where neo-cons like Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith held sway, the Bush Administration overruled Bremer's attempt to purge Saddam's Sunni supporters, explains Rubin. The flip-flop led to a greater reliance on the old regime's bureaucrats and generals, especially after the first standoff in the Sunni stronghold of Fallujah. It also created enormous fear among the Shia, who increasingly see al-Sadr as a needed counter-force.

According to Rubin, the White House simultaneously orchestrated a systematic campaign to marginalize Ahmed Chalabi, the neo-con favorite and scion of a well-known Shia family that had long supported Iraq's third holiest site, the Kazimiya Shrine. U.S. forces raided Chalabi's compound, supposedly unearthing evidence that he had counterfeited old Iraqi money. Unnamed intelligence sources accused him of being a longtime Iranian agent, and willing journalists lapped it up, without ever asking for proof.

Score a major bureaucratic victory for the C.I.A. and State Department. But, says Rubin, the cost was high, as large numbers of Iraqi Shia saw the humiliation of Chalabi as a slap at their entire community. They also saw it as yet another warning of the perils of allying with the untrustworthy Uncle Sam, who - under the first President Bush - urged them to rise up against Saddam after the first Gulf War and then left them unprotected to face the tyrant's revenge.

What, then, of the new American favorite, interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who is also a Shiite, but one with a past in Saddam's Baathist Party?

"His close association with the Central Intelligence Agency, Britain's MI6, and Jordanian intelligence have not helped him among a Shia population in which he has little if any constituency," warns Rubin. "The CIA may sing his praises to the president, but Langley's assets seldom make good leaders. They certainly don't make good democrats."

As Rubin sees it, the continuing siege of Najaf, the Shia's holiest city, only confirms their worst fears. "The U.S. pulled out of Fallujah because they worried about killing Sunnis," he quote one of his Iraqi informants. "But I guess they don't have that worry about Shia."

Is young Rubin simply an embittered voice from the losing side in Washington's hardball battles? Perhaps, but he hardly stands alone. Many neo-cons fault Bush for the way he pursued what they thought was their war. Fiascoes do that, creating an intense yearning to run from blame. Who me? I would have done it differently, and then we would have won. It makes a tricky defense to disprove.

Though far less strenuously than Rubin, Robert Kagan and others at the neo-con flagship The Weekly Standard have criticized Team Bush for not sending enough troops to make Iraq secure and not turning power over to Iraqis more quickly. Kagan and editor William Kristol strongly condemned the regional caucuses that Bremer tried to use to preclude real democratic elections, which the Shia were certain to win.

David Brooks, who graduated from the Rupert Murdoch funded Standard to a somewhat more pluralistic New York Times, spoke in anguished tones of how "depressing" it had become for those who support the war.

"The predictions people on my side made about the postwar world have not yet come true," he moaned in May. "The warnings others made about the fractious state of post-Saddam society have."

More than many of his soul mates, Brooks saw "an intellectual failure," which the ancient Athenians might have called the moral fault of hubris

"There was, above all, a failure to understand the consequences of our power," wrote the battered Brooks. "There was a failure to anticipate the response our power would have on the people we sought to liberate. They resent us for our power and at the same time expect us to be capable of everything."

But the biggest slam has come from one of the neo-cons' leading intellectuals, Francis Fukuyama, author of "The End of History." Confronting columnist Charles Krauthammer, who recently proposed that the United States pursue an interventionist policy of forcefully promoting global democracy, Fukuyama flat-out rejected the major neo-conservative arguments for going to war in Iraq. Saddam Hussein never posed an immediate threat to the United States, he declared. And the United States lacked the "nation-building" know-how to make Iraq democratic.

"If the United States cannot eliminate poverty or raise test scores in Washington, D.C.," he chided his neo-con colleagues, "how does it expect to bring democracy to a part of the world that has stubbornly resisted it and is virulently anti-American to boot?"

"The United States," he concluded, "needs to be more realistic about its nation-building abilities, and cautious in taking on large social-engineering projects in parts of the world it does not understand very well."

Fukuyama also faulted his close friend Krauthammer, and other neo-cons by implication, for failing to deal with reality. "There is not," he wrote, "the slightest nod towards the new empirical facts that have emerged in the last year or so: the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the virulent and steadily mounting anti-Americanism throughout the Middle East, the growing insurgency in Iraq, the fact that no strong democratic leadership had emerged there, the enormous financial and growing human cost of the war, the failure to leverage the war to make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian front, and the fact that America's fellow democratic allies had by and large failed to fall in line and legitimate American actions ex post."

Still claiming the neo-conservative mantle, Fukuyama continues to believe that the United States should play a deeply interventionist, even messianic role in world affairs. But, like the elder Bush, Brent Scowcroft, and other foreign policy realists whom the neo-cons deplore, Fukuyama urges some old-fashioned paleo-conservative virtues - prudence, restraint, and a greater respect for the "common opinions of mankind."

I wonder what Dr. Michael Rubin thinks about that.

Why not read the actual article:

http://www.nationalreview.com/rubin/rubin200408191059.asp

It is quite good and I am in agreement with a lot of it. The Administration has not pursued a realistic strategy with regard to the Shia majority and are playing into the hands of the Iranians.

agreed

It seems as if nothing the Administration has done with respect to Iraq is realistic. The intelligence was unrealistic. The preparations to secure the country were unrealistic. The expected reaction of the Iraq people were unrealistic. The goals were unrealistic.

This entire endeavor has been one mistake after another, each one based on unrealistic analysis and expectations -- and some people still think Mr. Bush should be praised for what his Iraqi War.

Amazing.

(BTW, excellent article. I am fascinated by the way the neocons are blaming everyone and everything but their own failed ideology for what has happened. They were warned what would happen if we pursued their vision. And they have not learned a damned thing!)

Yes, good article.

From John Andrew:
[We need an emoticon for dropped-jaw]

So many things came to mind when I read the article, and subsequently, your commments.

Where is our leadership? Where is the President of the United States?

It became a question of persuing their (neocon) vision!? What about our vision? Why hasn't our President[/b] listened to his people?

Where is our democracy?[/b] The US became the neocon-US? How did this happen? Leadership would not have allowed it to happen.

I am so dismayed.

Remember, this was a man who said he would be a uniter. But he sold us out. Big time.

One guy shows disagreement with one aspect of the Administration's Iraq policy and, to JA and KK and other, it represents a total melt down with regard to the entire Iraq war. No where in this article do I see an expression of doubt with regard to the wisdom of invadinng Iraq in the first place. Yet, to John Andrew and kathyk, it represents a total break with Administration policy. Amazing.

Some may recall something I said here the other day with regard to red meat and wolves.

No, JB, it's not just one guy. That's why I thought the article was so interesting. It's not only Rubin, but Kristol, Kagan, Fukayama, David Brooks. They're falling like a house of cards. But, what else can they do - their lofty, grand scheme came back and bit them good.


"Is young Rubin simply an embittered voice from the losing side in Washington's hardball battles? Perhaps, but he hardly stands alone.[/b] Many neo-cons fault Bush for the way he pursued what they thought was their war. Fiascoes do that, creating an intense yearning to run from blame. Who me? I would have done it differently, and then we would have won. It makes a tricky defense to disprove."

. . .

"David Brooks, who graduated from the Rupert Murdoch funded Standard to a somewhat more pluralistic New York Times, spoke in anguished tones of how "depressing" it had become for those who support the war. "

"The predictions people on my side made about the postwar world have not yet come true," he moaned in May. "The warnings others made about the fractious state of post-Saddam society have."

So far you have supplied the names of many who have tactical differences with the Administration on the pursuit of their Iraq policy. You can add my name to that list. However, none of us (to my knowledge) disagree with the overall strategic aim of the Iraq invasion and that was my point. No falling house of cards with regard to whether it should have been done, just differences with regard to how it should be done.

It is just a microcosm of politics in America today.

To govern, and govern effectively, consensus must be reached. In today's political climate, "red meat" can never be placed in danger of the fangs. Therefore, sooner or later, one side must annihlate the other, in order to assure governance. There no longer exists a loyal opposition in the country. There are no more Bob Michaels - gentlemen who would disagree in principle, but would craft legislation as long as some of their agenda was met.

If the country continues along the same macro-political path it has been on for almost 40 years (which IMO is just a return to America's normal pre-WWII views), I know who's gonna be on the outside looking in.

And I'm not sure whether the country is better, or worse off, for it.

People like JA and Kathy arrive at their conclusion, then go hunting for facts to support it. It's just one more reason our country can never ever *ever* allow those who think in this fashion to get into power. They arrive at the "answer" without ever even seeing the problem, so busy are they at proving the other side "wrong". That is foolish, and dangerous.

Hardly a fishing expedition, Larry. I happened upon the article in Truthout, which points to the article in the Weekly Standard. It's ALL right there.

This microcosm of politics, Jolly, is precisely the force that plunged us headlong into Iraq. That's why I find the situation so invidious - they don't represent mainstream thinking - they're ideologues pushing a fantastical agenda - yet they've driven the policies of this administration from Day One.

Let's hope more conservatives start to wake up and smell the coffee. I find this article heartening for that reason - ergo, the house of cards is falling.

It's all right there Kathy, except for the warped take on it you assigned it. That's my whole point.

"The house of cards is falling" - no, it isn't. That's the predetermined conclusion you went looking for. As a result, that's all you can see, and no amount of explaining things to you will ever change it. That's why I said what I said - we can *never* allow people who think the way you do to get into power.

Kathy, you proceed from an entire set of assumptions which are erroneous and nothing in what you have posted supports them. You have only shown there to be divisions in how a particular policy should be pursued. You will see that with any administration. BTW, the article cited by truthout was from National Review not the Weekly Standard. Might as well get that correct.

What assumptions? My thesis is simple: The neo-cons were wrong in their projections about this war, and they're slowly beginning to admit it. (Sorry for the mis-cite - those right-rags all sort of blur together in my mind's eye.)

Furthermore, it's not just a matter of an itty bitty policy gone awry. This sort of turns on its head the whole neo-con notion of taking charge of the world with nation building. I'd say that's a pretty major piece of the ideology.

Kathy,

There are those who will never see the obvious.

Just like the neocons, we have those on this Board who have been shifting the blame and saying it is not an ideological failure, but, as JBryan claims, simply a tactical failure.

How often on here have we read that the reason the WMD's were not found is ONLY because Mr. Bush spent a few months pretending to cooperate with the UN (as if the troops were even ready before the time we invaded!). No doubt is expressed by these people about the existense of the WMD's, no matter the evidence or what those who understand these things have said. Just arguments that the WMD search was thwarted by the tactic of talking to the UN.

The same thing with those who claim the overthrow of the Iraqi military was some sort of wondrous success. BCarey points out that part of any military vitory is to keep the other army from going undergorund and waging a continued insurgency. This is exactly what happened. Yes, the Iraqi army was overwhelmed quickly -- as if that would have been hard for the US. But no doubt is expressed about whether there was actually a victory at all even as the ffigthing continues, with Americans and Iraqis dying daily.

We hear the same denial blaming those Iraqis who are fighting the US occupation today. According to those who support Mr. Bush, the Iraqis fighting us are not loyal, patriotic Iraqis who want their country back. No. According to them, the loyal patriotic Iraqis all love what the US is doing. The only ones fighting us are malcontents who hate freedom and hate democracy and want to put Hussein back in power, or the Iranians in power or Osama bin Ladin in power.

They are all living in denial. The facts are before them -- we continue to experience them. Virtually all that more level-headed people warned would go wrong if we invaded has gone wrong.

And yet we hear that the failure is simply tactical. If we had had different tactics, the Iraqis would love us, they would be marching in lock step with all that the US has done and all the puppets the US put into power are doing.

Kathy, they literally cannot see that this entire thing is a failure. Or if they see it, they cannot bring themselves to admit it. So they find reasons outside of the most simple one -- the war was a stupid idea, that this type of foreign policy is bound to fail, that the premises on which the ideology has been contructed are pure fantasy.

And what is the most fascinating argument of all is that all of those who have been warning since the idea of invading and occupying Iraq first surfaced that it would fail are now being blamed for that very failure. If we had just kept our mouths shut, all would be a bed of roses with no thorns.

It's just like Vietnam. It took Robert McNamara almost two decades to get around to admitting he was just plain wrong and to finally apologize for the great eviul he inflicted on the US and the Vietnamese and the world.

I suspect it is going to take the neocons and their supporters the same amount of time to admit it about Iraq.

John, that was a magnificent piece of utter garbage. It was *almost* worth refuting.

I would call that a left field foul, but would give a star for distance.

Silly winger......

The fact remains, the people cited here and elsewhere that are supposedly representing a break with Administration policy on Iraq still are in agreement on the strategic aims of the invasion and have disagreements of a tactical nature only. Therefore, the conclusion that so-called "neocons" are having second thoughts about the actual invasion are erroneous. Furthermore, although mistakes and miscalculations have been made (expected since no plan survives first contact with the enemy), the conclusion that setbacks that have been encountered are proof that the strategy was wrong are similarly erroneous. JA and KK like to continuously opine that we are less safe than we were with Saddam in power but that is a difficult case to make in my view. Even with the difficulties we have ecountered, the absence of a Saddam Hussein working on ABC weapons and dancing cheek to cheek with terrorists is something we can definitely call a major step forward in terms of our security.

Of course this war is an ideological failure. It’s the sort of thing that happens when irrationality infests the highest levels of government, when presidents claim to speak for God, when ethnocentrism pervades and cultural relativism fades. At the root of this problem is a fundamental disconnect between two cultures, each convinced of its own rightness and the other’s wrongness.

In Vietnam, we thought we were fighting Communism. Our enemies thought they were fighting a colonialist aggressor. Such confusion is at the heart of our present conflict as well. Bush, with his severe narrow-mindedness and ignorance of other cultures, is in no position to reconcile the two sides.

Interesting observation and an even more interesting question at the end.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the US is moving back, or at least trying to move back, towards its traditional islolationist role in the world that existed prior to WWII and FDR. While I can see specific trends that would seem to qualify your observation, I also see increasing strategic and economic demands being placed on the US to do the opposite. In reality I would argue that the US can no more go back to pre-WWII views of itself than can China return to orthodox Marxism-Leninism or Russia reintroduce even a constitutional monarchy.

The US arose from isolationism in 1917 when it entered WWI. It was a major power broker in teh 1919 Paris Treaty. For awhile there was a brief return to semi isolationism yet all US politicians and policy makers recognized that US influence in the PAcific was growing to such an extent that US interests and Imperial Japanese interests would collide. The Pacific fleet of Dreadnoughts & aircraft carriers at Pearl Harbor affirm early US acceptance of maintaining command of the sea and a power projection capability in that theatre.

Today the US has global economic interests and the power projection ability to maintain global command of the sea. The proposed North American Missle Defence Program ( causing all symptoms of agaric hallucinations & political dyspepsia here right now), is yet another means of ensuring that a global sea, air and land power projection capability be maintained as a first line in defence of the homeland.

In past I have argued that the US inherited the mantle of the British Empire- an empire that was primarily commercial in nature. What remains or what arisen out of the ashes of major 20th Century conflicts and diplomatic initiatives is a global commonwealth of the English speaking peoples at whose head stands the United States of America. No other country of that commonwealth is capable of, or willing to, accept the huge responsibiliy this entails.

I too am not sure whether the US is better or worse off, for it either.

I vote for isolationism! See! I'm really a conservative.

Buchananite not conservative