>>But the really sad thing is that people like me have no choice but to support the Administration, because the alternatives - as much as I've tried to look for them - look as doltish as John Kerry.

You have a superior alternative.

You could support yourself. You can take direct action using your own resources to hack away at these problems in limited ways. You don't need the "great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else" to fix these problems.

Very well said AL. Part of being an American is assuming we are qualified to speak on any subject regardless of experience or expertise. Our media doesnt know a brigade from a bugle (many hold it as a point of pride doubtless) and probably think Austerlitz was a Nazi ski resort. That is a problem that has yet to be addressed, aside from people turning to New Media.
And it certainly does not excuse some of the blunders. There are people in the administration that have read history. It doesnt take a master general to tell you its a clever idea to stiffen each IA unit with American NCOs, but it took us a couple years to relearn what any Roman Prefect could have told you. Not launching a top priority crash course in rebuilding the Iraqi infastructure cost as dearly as well. Paul Bremer was a disaster in nearly every way.
Its acceptable for circumstances to surprise you, its disasterous not to have the flexibility to correct mistakes immediately. We have made corrections, but we have worked in Washington time, not Baghdad time. Things that need to be corrected in days or hours take months and years. That we are still winning has as much to do with the ineptness and stupidity of our enemies as anything. My biggest concern is that we as a people learn from this. We likely will walk away from Iraq with most of our goals reached. But it will have been costlier than it needed to be, and we should consider that next time our enemies may not be so self-defeating.

Pretty much. I was so unhappy with the Bush nomination that for the first time I considered voting for a Democrat in Al Gore. I didn't, and Al Gore's subsequent behavior confirmed to me the rightness of that decision, but that doesn't mean I've ever been happy with George Bush.

In fact, the first few months of GWB's term, I really came to like the guy. The tax cut was grant. The stance on the Kyoto treaty was great. I actually started liking the guy. But my opinion of him has been going downhill ever since 9/11. Not for any of the reasons he's been widely criticized by the Left necessarily (most which I find ridiculous and unjust), but simply because it confirms to me that he is just a mediocre intellect and a mediocre charisma (and a poor statesman) in a time that calls for greatness like few times in our history. His heart is I believe in the right place, but he's obviously in over his head.

GWB settles for me once and for all the question of whether the US has been fortunate in finding great men during trying times, or whether it is merely the case that the times make men great. Clearly the US has been blessed with great men at the right times, because the times are not making GWB great.

But where are we to turn to find such a man (or woman)? I see noone in either party who possesses even a glimmer of the qualities of greatness. The political system is becoming sicker and sicker on both sides. Neither side is saying the right things, or seems to understand the urgency of the times. The blogosphere is really my last hope. If the New Media can't correct the system, then I'm afraid that the prediction I made in 1998 that the government of the United States would collapse by 2020 will likely come true. (I think we came really darn close in 2000.)

I do not want to live in interesting times. Yet the leadership of the US on both sides seems ready to ram the ship of state into a veritable iceberg rather than adopt a new course.

Celebrim, you can find reams of the same sentiment written about Lincoln by his contemporaries, almost to the word (he was considered unintelligent and a bumpkin as well). The Bull Runs and Cold Harbors and draft riots simply add to the legend of Lincoln's steadfastness. History illuminates greatness, and the jury is still out on Bush. If the Middle East is transformed into the next Eastern Europe, that is all that will be remembered about Bush, everything else is small time, historically speaking. If not, he goes down as Calvin Coolidge.

The problem you are facing can be summed up here:
But worse, far worse, was the tendency of the White House—particularly Karl Rove's message apparatus—to see the war as part of the Permanent Campaign, as a political opportunity at first and then, as the news turned bad, as merely another issue to be massaged. There is something quite obscene about the existence of the White House Iraq Group (whig). Its job had nothing to do with the military or political situation in Iraq; it was created to market the war and to smear the President's opponents. Rove and Libby were at the heart of this group. Their decision to ask Congress for a war resolution in September 2002, two months before the congressional elections, seemed an obvious marketing ploy. Rove told Republicans that they could "go to the country with this issue," that it would reinforce the party's image as strong on defense(Joe Klein @ Time).

The problem cited above comes down to this. Bush believes the Big P political, i.e. that is STATESMEN, issue for him is to establish a conservative court. Like a military campaign there are losses in this case Miers but the long struggle will be accomplished if Alito is confirmed.

For Liberals and Progressives whom recognize that the GWOT should be the big P issue, because the court will not matter if the Terrorists win, there is nothing but chagrin and dismay to see it is being run as a small "p" political issue, ie POLITICIAN. Some of the chagrin and dismay is because you have to take s@#$ which is no longer good natured ribbing from people whom disagree with you about the President. Most of it is because when you examine the thought and process that went into the court nominations you are wondering these processes and thought was not applied to the GWOT and Iraq in particular. and recognizing that it is all small "p" politics makes you sick to your stomach. Worse, your party is not providing, stating and even hinting out a viable alternative you have lost your lunch.

The only thing to do is work both sides. Keep screaming, blogging or state your views as positively as possible to the President about this issue. B@#$%, moan and implore your own party to find a viable solution. The one hope you have is that the indictment of Libby will focus the President on making his big P legacy is a successful outcome in Iraq.

Robert, simple question: is it more likely that we will lose this war on the battlefield, or in the minds of the American people? In war, you dedicate your energy and resources where they are needed most, right? Ignoring politics (particularly considering there are certain faction here that would be quite happy to see us fail in Iraq) would guarantee our defeat in Iraq no matter the brilliance of the campaign.

"Celebrim, you can find reams of the same sentiment written about Lincoln by his contemporaries, almost to the word (he was considered unintelligent and a bumpkin as well)."

You don't have to tell me that. As far as I know, Bush and Lincoln share the distinction of being the only Presidents regularly portrayed as chimpanzees by cartoonists. Somewhere around here I have a post from before the election in which I compare Bush to Lincoln and Kerry to the dapper McClellen.

"If not, he goes down as Calvin Coolidge."

I was thinking more along the lines of James Buchanan.

In Bush's defence, he's facing off against not only a dangerous and cunning foreign enemy, but the entrenched institutions of political correctness, our own legacy of foreign policy ineptitude, and the unexploded memetic weapons left over from the Soviet's cold war against us. So the task might be too much for anyone, and the fight would not be nearly finished after eight years whoever occupied the office. But Bush rarely gives me confidence that he actually could get the job down even were he not faced with such overwhelming obstacles.

So, A.L.

How does this:

I've got - we've all got - the choice between someone who is trying to do the right thing for what appears to be the right reasons, but is both feckless and mulishly stubborn..

In any way jive with this?

Still got that Che poster up on your wall?

If we were dealing with Che instead of Zaquawi, we'd be in real trouble. The guy was a son of a b#$^{h, but a remarkble son of a b#$}h.

Re: "We just flat don't understand how messy the real world is";
This is more than TV. I just finished reading Robert Sherrod's "Tarawa". The observations Sherrod made in his "Afterword" chapter about the public attitude towards the war in 1943-44 could have been written about Iraq today. People just don't want to be inconvenienced. Period.

The book is available used from www.powells.com

celebrim: I was thinking more along the lines of James Buchanan.

Now that is unjust. Not just to Bush, but to the country, which is nowhere near where it was in those days.

Buchanan was a man whose loyalties were so confused that he couldn't decide which side he on, or what he would do if he were on a side. He occupied himself with petty politics instead, so the major accomplishment of his administration was to prevent his hated enemy Stephen Douglas from becoming president.

Bush's enemies are more Buchananite than he is. In fact, Kerry would have made Buchanan look decisive.

celebrim: "and the unexploded memetic weapons left over from the Soviet's cold war against us"

Perfect! Those mental ammo dumps, those mind fields left over from the Cold War still litter the West in ways that make Saddam's scrappy metal weapons caches look insignificant by comparison. Propaganda wars take generations to win. Resistance can never be entirely eliminated.

Glen: "Now that is unjust. Not just to Bush, but to the country, which is nowhere near where it was in those days."

I hope you are right, but I think my main point is more or less made by your conclusion.

"Bush's enemies are more Buchananite than he is. In fact, Kerry would have made Buchanan look decisive."

Is this supposed to give me solace? I'm I supposed to like voting for the lesser of two evils?

Vote for the Republicans, now just two thirds as Buchananite as the Democrats? Is Bush's greatest accomplishment to be that he kept Kerry out of office? History is I'm afraid, still out. The range of options is uncomfortably broad.

Lesser of two evils is hardly inspiring, but it is worth taking a look at KerryWorld and asking whether things could be worse. Kerry's call for arbitrary withdrawals has gotten a lot of notice, but I haven't seen much attention to his recent call for "a conference of nations led by the United States, Britain, Turkey, Russia and other NATO allies to forge a compromise between the Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish factions in Iraq." Huh? The constituion is ratified, now its time for the "great powers" to broker a deal? Talk about arrogant imperialism.

mulishly stubborn seems to me to be a good trait in a war leader. Sometimes hanging on in the face of a bad decisions ultimately leads to good results: Anzio.