1. On partisanship in health care. How soon we forget. Bill Kristol, Surge Architect, made his bones with a successful strike against the Clinton Administration's health care plan.

December 2, 1993 - Leading conservative operative William Kristol privately circulates a strategy document to Republicans in Congress. Kristol writes that congressional Republicans should work to "kill" -- not amend -- the Clinton plan because it presents a real danger to the Republican future: Its passage will give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote and revive the reputation of the party. Nearly a full year before Republicans will unite behind the "Contract With America," Kristol has provided the rationale and the steel for them to achieve their aims of winning control of Congress and becoming America's majority party. Killing health care will serve both ends. The timing of the memo dovetails with a growing private consensus among Republicans that all-out opposition to the Clinton plan is in their best political interest. Until the memo surfaces, most opponents prefer behind-the-scenes warfare largely shielded from public view. The boldness of Kristol's strategy signals a new turn in the battle. Not only is it politically acceptable to criticize the Clinton plan on policy grounds, it is also politically advantageous. By the end of 1993, blocking reform poses little risk as the public becomes increasingly fearful of what it has heard about the Clinton plan.
[snip]
January 25, 1994 - In his State of the Union address, President Clinton tries to refocus public attention on health care reform… The barrage of Whitewater stories continues, creating a siege mentality at the White House. Republicans openly embrace William Kristol's latest advice: Oppose any Clinton health care reform "sight unseen" and adopt a stance that "There is no health care crisis." [!—AJL]
[snip]
March 1994 - Democrat John Dingell approaches Carlos Moorhead of California -the senior Republican on his committee -- to raise the possibility of working out a health bill together. According to Dingell, Moorhead responds: "There's no way you're going to get a single vote on this [Republican] side of the aisle. You will not only not get a vote here, but we've been instructed that if we participate in that undertaking at all, those of us who do will lose Our seniority and will not be ranking minority members within the Republican Party."

The Kristol strategy, as implemented mostly by Newt Gingrich, was a complete success, with the GOP sweeping the 1994 elections. Pity Kristol's Iraq War plan didn't work out so well. But then, until recently the Democrats were, I admit, pretty short in the fight-back department. Terrorists might be made of sterner stuff. As a believer in the Goose-Gander principle of politics, excuse me while I cry me a river for the Bush Health Plan. But that's without even examining if it's as good as Hillarycare. Looks unlikely. Its principal outcome seems to have very little to do with covering the uninsured and underinsured, while by coincidence providing tax relief for the very wealthy with private insurance. (This will be paid for by tax increases on those members of the working and middle classes with good employer-provided plans, e.g., Democratic-voting members of labor unions.) Kevin Drum sums it up.

As Marcus herself points out, it increases the risk that "the already-teetering employer-based system will collapse as healthy individuals use their tax deduction to buy cheaper, private insurance, leaving employers with the older and the sicker."

2. Isn't it past time that Bush supporters stop comparing the opposition party, and, increasingly, disgruntled members of the President's own party with their WW2 counterparts and start comparing the talents of the respective presidents in the pursuit of the war? After it became evident that the WW2 British government was botching the war, Neville Chamberlain didn't whimper about how criticism of his performance was not supporting the troops, nor how it was giving comfort to the enemy. No, he stood at the Commons debate on the Fall of Norway and listened to his predecessor David Lloyd George say

The Prime Minister must remember that he has met this formidable foe of ours in peace and in war. He has always been worsted.…He [Chamberlain] has appealed for sacrifice. The nation is prepared for every sacrifice so long as it has leadership.… I say solemnly that the Prime Minister should give an example of sacrifice because there is nothing which can contribute more to victory in this war than that he should sacrifice the seals of office.

We don't have a Parliamentary system, so it would be inappropriate to demand that Bush resign. That doesn't escape the fact that he has not understood his little adventure from the get-go, except as a demonstration of his own powers as Commander-in-Chief. At this point, AFAICT, "victory" in the language of his own partisans consists of setting up a moderately-theocratic Shiite state that will magically fail to ally with its affinal neighbor, and magically fail to purge and brutalize the Sunni minority. We reached this state—and even as an original opponent of the war, I must say that this outcome is worse than could have been obtained by responsible conduct of the war from the start—while the Commander-in-Chief's sycophants and courtiers were assuring him, and he was repeating, that wee were winning in Iraq. While ridiculing and demoting the Cassandras as defeatists, he concentrated on empowering himself with wiretaps, mail covers, detentions, and interrogation techniques of highly dubious legality.

Sixty percent or more of the American public has realized that we have entrusted ourselves to a quack in the last two elections, diverted by his faux-macho style and the vigor of his political attack machine that failed only in 2006. It's not an easy question whether to root for quacks to pull off occasional miracles. An acquaintance of mine has taken his life savings (he is in his 60s) including his retirement account, plus much of his wife's savings that was not in trust, and he is using it for an alternative-medicine operation on his adult son. Western medicine says the son is terminally ill and the planned treatment useless. There's a strong argument hoping against a miraculous recovery to discourage other people from squandering everything they have for the benefit of charlatans. And that's where our Iraq policy is now, in the hands of madmen and charlatans. Having spurned the "flaming turd" report of the Iraq Study Group—his father's and the Establishment's attempt to bring some reality into view—President Bush is left galloping off into an alternate universe. The sooner the forces of the rest of the government, i.e., his dwindling number of Republican Congressional enablers, can take over the War on Terror and make for the best remaining possible result, instead of amateurish Power Point pipe dreams, the better.

Why, for example, was this saviour Gen. Petraeus not in the seat of Jay Garner or Paul Bremer, back when he could have made so much more difference? Would he have steered reconstruction away from lucrative Cheneyburton contracts?

Regardless how well Bush performed or not, the Senate Arms Services Committee just passed their nonbinding resolution against the troop surge.

Any Republican thinking of getting on board this thing had better be told in no uncertain terms by the Conservative base that they can expect no further support in their future elections. This is utter mutiny and Luger is the Fletcher Christian of the group thus far.

Republicans didnt lose in November because of the war (although it didnt help), they lost because they pissed off their base by acting like anything but Conservatives. Now they are intent on repeating their mistake by fluttering in the wind on Iraq. What exactly does Luger and Co hope to accomplish by cutting Bush's legs out from under him? Do they honestly think that will provide political innoculation if the war does end in defeat? Its absurd. Worse, everyone knows full well that the alternative to the surge is to abandon Iraq, either quickly or slowly. So what is Luger trying to tell us? He's on board with handing Iraq over to jihadis so long as his political career is confused? With friends like these who needs Democrats?

Bush had another obstacle that FDR did not, and one that has not been pointed out enough. His opponents frustrated and ridiculed every attempt to bring Saddam to heel without war, and his efforts to deal with Saddam through the UN did not receive the support they deserved. Not to mention three congressional Democrats who went to Baghdad to denounce Bush, and to basically endorse Saddam Hussein's defiance of a UN resolution.

Bush has never been the leader we needed, but I firmly believe he is not the one who will go down in infamy.

The left which opposed all peaceful efforts to deal with Iraq did so because they claimed these efforts were nothing but a pretext for war. This is now their position on Iran.

Google vs. alternate history.

His opponents frustrated and ridiculed every attempt to bring Saddam to heel without war, and his efforts to deal with Saddam through the UN did not receive the support they deserved.

Maybe Glen can explain to me: how was ridiculing Hans Blix's inspection teams and forcing them to evacuate supporting an attempt to deal with Saddam through the UN?

(Some in the administration did try to scare them. "We will not hesitate to discredit you," Vice President Cheney said to Blix before he began his job.)

And again,

With a US-led war against Iraq now looking imminent [3/17/2003], it is hoped that the 60 inspectors and some 90 other UN staff based in Baghdad can get out within 48-hours. Several weapons inspectors checked out of their hotels in Baghdad this morning, according to witnesses cited by the Reuters news agency. The chief weapons inspectors, Hans Blix and Mohamed El Baradei, confirmed to the UN security council this afternoon that their teams are to leave and Mr Annan announced the move to the media after the meeting.

When Bush went after Saddam through the United Nations, I thought he was pulling off a masterful bluff that would force Saddam to readmit inspectors. And it worked. Up until the very moment of the invasion, I was convinced that he knew the chess aphorism that the threat is stronger than the execution. Bush got all the non-military support he wanted. There is now abundant evidence that Bush's desire to invade Iraq preceded even 9/11 and that the Decider's decision was essentially unstoppable.

What utterly pitiful excuses. Next: the dog ate my war plan.

"Bush got all the non-military support he wanted."

I think you're thinking of Hussein. Oil for food?

I'm not sure what AJL's point here is. If there was a Democrat willing to play Churchill to Bush's Chamberlain, then I would be all aboard.

But let's face it, the Democrats of today are the American Republicans of that era. Suspicious that foreign engagement is merely a bid to amplify Presidential power, suspicious of foreigners and America's role in the greater world and beholden to conspiracy theories. Chamberlain's ability to deal with the Germans was directly harmed by the Republicans in Congress grandstanding on debt repayment and pretending that war was not coming. One can almost hear their sneers: Why should we help the British build fire stations in London when we have our own house to keep in order?

My 2 cents: Republicans didn't lose in 2006 primarily on the basis of the war in Iraq, they lost, IMHO, because of the video of Jack Abramhoff in being indicted in his ridulous fat cat hat and and coat. That tawdry image and taint got all over the Rebublicans. Corruption was the biggest factor according to exit polls.

That said, my personal feeling was that 5 years after 9-11, and Rebublicans controlling both houses and the executive, we should have had more to show as results. Who do I see about that?

I should also have pointed out the complete inaccuracy of Glen's statement about FDR's experience. On the Lend-Lease Act, Republicans voted 135 to 24 against in the House, and 17-109 against in the Senate. Hitler-lovers, I guess.

for 109 read 10

The SOTU notwithstanding, a lot of Americans did vote for failure, or at least voted that we should concede failure (which is effectively the same thing).

So this generation gets to have its very own Vietnam. I'm really not sure what that gets anyone. Sure, if the troops all came home tomorrow, overall mortality rate among them would go down (by less than most people think) and certainly the horrors of non-fatal wounds would be greatly diminished, and that would be a blessing.

However, pardon me for thinking that human suffering taken as a whole (instead of just American suffering) would be likely to increase. The local leaders in the Arab/Persian/Kurd, Sunni/Shia/Ala'awite/ insert-ancient-conflict-here dramas seem intent on convincing the West that the one thing they want most (after our petrodollars) is to be left alone to wage Jihad on anyone who doesn't do the secret handshake right.

Which people like, say, the President of Iran continually say will include us again, just as soon as they get tired of slitting their neighbors throats once more.

So being comfortable that the internal conflicts in the Islamic world could never cause carnage in, say, lower Manhattan, the Progressive Left is pleased as punch that Right-Wing Imperialists have been re-taught a much-needed lesson, that the non-Occidental world is both not ready and too sophisticated for all the things we take for granted, like the ability to wear either a turban, a yarmulke, or a Red Sox hat without being beheaded (even in Brooklyn).

Personally, I think the Bush Doctrine was worth trying. And now that I have twins coming in a few months, I really wish it had worked out, because I don't see the future getting any less dangerous without some fundamental changes in the way the Middle East functions. (I'd love to see/hear some evidence that any non-negligible Islamic forces for reform exist, but it just isn't there, and hasn't been in my lifetime.)

I harp on it every time I get into a conversation here, but the one thing I really want to hear from the critics is an alternative plan. I will grant that Bush hasn't been Churchillian; I know that Islam doesn't have an army ready to storm our beaches; I understand that at worst right now we could lose one or maybe two cities to some kind of ad-hoc nuclear attack. (Damn, the things we're willing to concede...)

But what about 5 years from now? Or 10 years from now? The genie is well and truly out of the bottle, and there's no sign that the forces that would see the ultimate destruction of what I want for my children are about to have some kind of epiphany that we should all just get along. What's the plan for making the world safe for true believers in the Enlightenment?

I see a lot of triumphalism and dancing-upon-graves, but the questions remain, and grown ups should be trying to answer them.

Any Republican thinking of getting on board this thing had better be told in no uncertain terms by the Conservative base that they can expect no further support in their future elections. This is utter mutiny and Luger is the Fletcher Christian of the group thus far.

Luger voted against the resolution, Hagel was the only Republican to support it.

Thanks Thorley, my apologies to Mr Luger.

Where is the republican leadership on this thing?

Im shocked at how easily all these guys are finding it to go their own way. Republicans should be in lockstep on this considering the alternative the main points of which i have Fisked below:

"Redeploy U.S. forces out of Iraq's cities with a more limited mission focused on defending Iraq's territorial integrity, counterterrorism, border control, and accelerated training of Iraqi forces;"

Is there any possible way this doesnt lead to complete social breakdown in Baghdad? Seriously?

"•Transfer responsibility for internal security and halting sectarian violence to Iraqi forces under an appropriately expedited timeline;"

Oh. How is that any different from what has failed to work in Baghdad over the last year? Havent we been trying to do this? If the government is under the thumb of Sadr how is removing both our troops and our influence going to improve the situation?

"•Continue to support Iraq's political process while making it clear that Iraqi leaders must make the political compromises necessary to help Iraq move forward;"

Ooook. Nice words. How does this materially affect the reality on the ground?

"•Engage Iraq's neighbors and the international community to build a regional framework to help support and sustain a political solution and national reconciliation."

What the hell does this mean? Assume a diplomatic ladder? Is anybody on the planet idiotic enough to believe Iran will start playing nice with Iraq if we just sweet talk them? Is it just maybe possible their first demand will be to lay off their nuke program? So do we allow Iran nukes in exchange for being able to run away from Iraq unimpeded? Is that the 08 bumpersticker Hagle and Biden want to embrace?

This was the most unserious proposal i have seen to date... bloggers included! Is anyone ready to defend or champion this dreck? Because i am seriously interested... its one thing to argue we should cut out of Iraq for our own good, entirely another to live in a fantasy world where cutting out actually improves the situation for either Iraqis or US security. Do these guys believe their own bull?

I really wish it had worked out

The wish is not father to the deed. Perhaps gambles predicated on wishes are not so good.

Mark: Although some people argue that cutting and running might help the situation (by removing anti-american sentiment), I strongly disagree. However, I don't see the situation improving with us there either, and nothing is likely to change with a 20,000 troop increase. I'm on the fence here, because what is at stake is a regional sunni:shia genocidal war. On the other hand; if things continue as is, we can expect the same thing.

There was news that men inside Sadr's forces have been rounded up this week. This may be a sign of good things coming, or they may merely be set free, or (possibly) Shia militias will continue to march unabated. We'll see.

This all boils down to the question: How far are we willing to go? What is the worst case scenario we can take before it is foolish to continue on? How much can we afford to spend? How many years are we willing to work with no improvement in the level of violence?

I heard a talk show last night where they were pointing out that 73 years after the Declaration of Independence, Southerners still felt more loyalty to their state then their country, and thus was born the civil war. And this was without the same vehement hatred that exists between some sunni:shia groups. Can we afford to wait that long?

"This all boils down to the question: How far are we willing to go? What is the worst case scenario we can take before it is foolish to continue on? How much can we afford to spend? How many years are we willing to work with no improvement in the level of violence?"

Very valid questions. When the war started I assumed we'd be in Iraq for at least 10 years. If at the beginning I'd been told that it would take this long to pass 3000 U.S. soldiers KIA, I would have thought things had gone astoundingly well. What has surprised me is how much internecine violence there has been, and how unlikely it seems right now that we can actually stop it. If there was a resistance fighting the U.S. I would feel better about our chances; as it is, the whole region seems intent on destroying itself, with our soldiers literally caught in the middle.

I'm obviously very discouraged. The only thing I'm absolutely sure of is that we owe the Kurds in Northern Iraq all the support we can give them. Otherwise, I'm starting to think maybe the other Iraqi's deserve all the misery they seem so intent on creating for themselves. And should anyone try to export the misery, there's always the Atrios approach.

On another thread I pointed out that one of the side effects of war is the loser tends to adopt the ethical system of the winner. I for one didn't want the Jihadi way of war to become our way, but I guess I should just stop caring about good intentions and be willing to trade a city or two for their entire civilization.

Or, as Kos once famously said, screw 'em.

The FDR parallels can be fun. George Bush has Teddy Kennedy with a defeatist spin and FDR had Teddy Kennedy's father with the defeatish spin.

There are two good reasons why I would oppose Bush, even if he proposed exactly what I want.

First, based on his track record, I don't believe anything he says without solid independent confirmation.

Second, based on his track record, I don't believe that he and his administration have the capability to carry out a plan that they announce.

There are very important things to be done in Iraq, but at this point, I don't believe that the Bush administration has any idea what they are, or the ability to put them into action if they did. If they would simply resign, and we could get another administration, then maybe it would be worth a try.

Otherwise, I see no reason to pour good living blood down the drain after all that has already been shed.

The problem, Beard is the one I keep getting stuck on - compared to who? Bush is incompetent - compared to Kerry?

Trust me, there are so many things about him his policies, and administration that make me itch - I'd jump in a minute given an alternative.

A.L.

So what Andrew J are the Dems proposing?

Run away that is surrender to bin Laden and Iran (cause that's who is fighting us) in Iraq. Soon to be matched no doubt by a surrender to Iran in all matters pertaining to the Gulf and ME and here at home. If indeed the Iranians and NoKos are collaborating on nuclear development (i.e. offshoring just like Wal-Mart).

If anyone has ANY alternative that won't get us nuked, won't get Israel nuked (I know, I know, the pet project of the anti-Semites in the Democratic Party from Dhimmi Carter to Wes Clark) I'd like to hear it.

WHAT are Dems going to do? Eventually de-fund the war, and retreat from Iraq AND Afghanistan. We can hardly hold Afghanistan if we can't hold Iraq. Surrender to bin Laden and Iran is the platform of the Dems. Witness Turban Durbin and Rockefeller standing by their Ahmadinejad man. Who's foreign minister again said America and Israel would cease to exist "very soon."

What is notable in all this is what Dems are NOT saying. They are NOT saying (and neither is the media) that bin Laden (or certainly Zawahari) are in Waziristan and need to be dealt with. Because they are, and do. And Pakistan's nukes shelters them. Besides the Dems in EVERY instance are opposed TO ANY MILITARY ACTION AT ANY TIME. They weren't always. But that's the party as it exists now.

But the enemy gets a vote. Gets to initiate action. Fatally, Al Qaeda and Iran may seize this moment to launch a gigantic strike against the US. Imagine say Polonium 210 dispersed at the Superbowl. Or an NCAA basketball game.

GWB caved, suddenly and with no fanfare, on FISA warrants and the need to act without warrants to stop terrorist actions. WHY? Why have no Dems acted in triumph? Why isn't Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid trumpeting that? Why aren't they trying to kill the Patriot Act (when they likely have a vote).

Because IMHO they and Bush have all been briefed on the range and scope of attempted known plots by Al Qaeda to blow up Americans (recall the Millenium Bomb plot planned to vaporize LAX) and the guesses of counter-terrorist forces that sooner rather than later a plot will succeed.

Think about the political landscape after say, 10-20,000 people are dead in the US due to Al Qaeda or Iran or both killing Americans in a "big push" to get us to surrender (to Islam) which is their goal. Fantasy but their goal nevertheless.

Bush can now claim "the Democratic Congress forced me to give up the tools I used to protect you. Because they cared more about Terrorist rights than the lives of your loved ones."

THAT is Bush's trump card (and very likely IMHO he realizes he can't continue his streak of luck forever). Unspoken in all of this is the opportunity in Iraq (not the least of which is Saddam's archives, and various players in Iraq) to open up the window of who and what in Al Qaeda and Iran is doing what and to whom. The Iraq War may well have been worth it just for finding out who in Al Qaeda was doing what.

But you'll note Reid and Pelosi are not claiming victory loudly over Bush's FISA back-down. They can see the danger. That Dems have no answer to terror but surrender ignores the obvious: the Enemy has a vote.

#18

YES, compared to Kerry. Compared to Edwards. Compared to Clarke or Dean. Compared to Kucinich, or Mosely-Braun. Hell, I'll take Al Sharpton over Bush. Anyone but Lieberman, that is.

It depresses me to think where we could be right now if Al Gore was elected in 2000. No war. No huge deficit. Perhaps even 9/11 could have been averted.

Your post is dishonest. His "policies" bother you? It's his actions that are killing the rest of us.

This all boils down to the question: How far are we willing to go?

IMO, worst case scenario and best case scenario, U.S. forces will be asked to leave and that will be it.

The problem is the range of medium scenarios . . .

Exactly. The question at hand is what is the alternative? If we withdraw from the cities (and eventually the nation) we know what will happen. If we keep the status quo, we pretty well know as well.

Petraeus has said exactly that, he can't impliment his strategy without the surge of troops. A month ago democrats were screaming for more troops, two weeks ago they were screaming to listen to the generals, now Bush asks them to do both and they are just screaming what the honest cut and runners have been saying all along.

So do we give Petraeus a shot to retrieve what will otherwise certainly be an unmitigated defeat, and possibly a disaster equivalent to an American Teutoburg Forest? Do we Bush a last chance, despite all his failures, to rise up and correct his blunders? Or do we throw up our hands and take the beating coming to us?

Lets study this from a cost benefit analysis for a moment. We invaded Iraq, most of us agreeing that thousands of US soldiers would potentially be killed. I think most of us agree that leaving Iraq now would create a situation even worse than Saddams threat was. So we risked those troops before to stop a lesser risk, is there any sense in not absorbing (at worst) this last punishment in a gamble that could potentially pay off in almost unimaginable shift of American fortunes? The Democrats cant set Bush aside (to their shame), the rest of us had better. Logically this is as close to a no brainer as you get. You dont fold your hand when 99% of your chips are already in the pot. Its pointless.

"It depresses me to think where we could be right now if Al Gore was elected in 2000. No war. No huge deficit. Perhaps even 9/11 could have been averted."

Could he have stopped people from being mean to each other too? Put in a good word to Santa for me? Raise the dead and heal the afflicted? Is there anything Al Gore couldnt have done in fantasy parallel universe?

Andy, that's just pluperfect BDS. And there's the problem. The war, to many - you as well, it seems - is really a referendum on Bush and domestic politics.

Some of us disagree with that. We'd like to see a domestic politics centered on an honest appraisal of the war (yes, I know, you'll argue that we got one...)

A.L.

You know, Rockford, I feel much the same way you do, but about how Bush actually responded to 9/11. And my fears have actually materialized in the real world, while yours are just nightmares. (I'm not saying that they couldn't come true, but they haven't yet.)

Immediately after 9/11, we had taken 3,000 casualties, inflicted by a terrorist gang, and we had the sympathy of the world, including most of the Islamic world. On 9/20/01, Bush gave a very good speech (Michael Gerson can be proud of it), promising to lead the world in a fight against terrorism. But he failed to follow through.

Instead of consigning OBL to being part of a hunted criminal gang, to be captured, tried, and punished for mass murder, Bush's "War on Terror" elevated OBL and Al Qaeda to the stature of an existential threat against the USA. Just what they wanted, and more than they could have hoped for. Then we attacked Iraq, and helped him radicalize and mobilize the Islamic street against us. It's hard for me to imagine how anyone in the world could have done more for the Al Qaeda cause than George Bush has, since 9-11. We've made them a vastly greater threat than they ever could have, by themselves.

So, we started with a tragic mass murder. Then our "leaders" handed our enemies a whole series of major weapons to use against us, and have complained as those enemies have used those weapons more and more effectively.

Then you and AL say Bush should stay in power because, now that the problem is a thousand times worse than it was when he started, other people are willing to admit that they don't have all the answers. C'mon!

We're facing dangerous fires. This guy has been throwing gasoline on them and making them worse. And he's got more gasoline handy!

So yes, I'd take John Kerry, with any of his flaws. I'd rather have Al Gore, though, since he's smarter and more principled. But you could select the next president by lottery, and have a pretty good chance of doing better than this crowd. We'd be a lot better off led by mere incompetence, than by a figurehead for a crowd of highly competent people controlled by a set of really bad ideas.

(Sorry for losing my temper. This reminds me of how I felt watching the Katrina catastrophe unfold.)

If I could sum up Beards hypothesis- AQ and OBL were overrated as threats which is why they should have been concentrated on, but since they werent adequated they have now become such a threat, which is why we should run away from confronting them.

Gotcha.

Sorry Mark [#26], you got it wrong. Read it again and try for a better summary.

As revenge on you for trying to be snarky, I'll get pedantic.

If you're arguing against someone, it's a good thing to summarize their position first. But you have to summarize it accurately, so they will agree with the summary. Then your reply, based on their accepted summary, can have real impact, even on them if they are willing to listen. (And I am, believe it or not.)

But if your summary misses the point, then any other comment you might have gets dismissed out of hand, since you obviously don't know what you're responding to. Your argument has no impact, except for the fun you had composing it. (Not to be ignored, but sort of masturbatory.)

If you want to change minds, you have to understand where they start.

Good luck next time.

Interesting to read all the foolish self pity on here. How typical.

You people have to realize the M.E. is NOT the playground of the US anymore.

The people of the region have had enough of you and now you're going to leave. One way or the other.

You people don't realize that it is you who declared war on the Muslims of the M.E. waaaaayy back in 1953.

You deposed a democratically elected goverment in Iran and installed a dictator for the next 26 years.

You supported the establishment of a squatter nation called Isreal, built on stolen land.

You armed it to the teeth and encouraged it to torment and attrit the Palestinians for the last 50 years

You support through military means, the half dozen CORRUPT EVIL UNELECTED Arab dictatorships that YOU call moderate. How stupidly laughable. Moderate must mean puppet in your lexicon. Aah yes, I know a flash truth just fired in some synapses walled off in your heads.

You encouraged the pitbull, saddam, to invade Iran in its moment of weakness to saw off the Revolution at its knees and supported a war that cost over a MILLION LIVES. Oh I know.. I know .. you pathetic americans keep pointing to some hothead students who took you pitviper "diplomats" hostage for a year, even though you bastards deserved FAR WORSE for what you did to Iran.

You came into Lebanon in 1982 claiming to be neutral peacekeepers but quickly took the side of the Christians in the civil war. And you all still wonder to this day why you got hit along with the French. How stupid. How american.

You then disciplined your Iraqi dog in 1991 for biting one of the US's prized puppy oil states, Kuwait. Bravo.. Bravo... what a shining example of freedom and democracy you saved. Bravo.

But then it wasn't enough to eject Saddam from Kuwait. Now you decide that he has to go. So for the next 12 years.

You tormented the Iraqi people in the hope that they would rebel from a sense of despair and anger. Instead you just killed a half million children from lack of sanitary water and medical supplies. And your sec of state said, "It was worth it."

You put thousands of troops in Saudi as a basing point to establish a new level of control over the M.E.. You were basking in the euphoria of your unipolar moment. How foolish. How stupid. How arrogant.

So then you got hit in 1993.

And again in 1996.

And again in 1998.

And again in 2000.

And again in 2001.

Osama told you in 1998 WHY he was going to attack you. READ IT. I know none of you have because none of you have ever stated the reasons he WROTE down. Instead you cluck away with fever addled fantasies of Muslim Jihadis storming New York becasue they hate your freedom. Hahahahaahahhhaaa.. how stupid. Your freedom. Why would the Muslims(who have known about american freedom for the last 100 years) suddenly develope pathological urge to go half way around the planet to attack your freedom? READ Osama's fatwah. READ IT.

http://www.charactercomputing.com/attack/fatwa.htm

READ IT. It's but 1 page. READ IT.

Very reasonable. No? It states simply, "You have done much damage and now leave." Your fevered imaginations WANT to believe that the Muslims actually want to come across the ocean and convert your pathetic country. No, my insipid friends. We want you gone from our land. Then our war with you is over.

You have done immeasurable damage to the Muslims nations over the last 50 years. They are asking for nothing except that you LEAVE.

And so you shall.

MMir, sadly you've been reading too many jihadi websites, and keep misunderstanding the real situation.

Much of what you say is true; we in the West - going back to the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire - have meddled for our own purposes with the lives of people in the Middle East. We've supported compliant dictators, in the hopes that we could quietly pump oil and fuel the world economy.

We supported the right of Jews to return to their ancestral homeland, and once there, supported them in their efforts to stay alive.

That's quite a bill that's come due.

But not all of it is ours to pay. Other countries - India comes to mind - have suffered the same indignities, and instead of an economy based on small group of rentiers, are about to send one of their citizens to the moon. Other countries - South Africa comes to mind - have borne great suffereing and are -slowly - working toward some kind of national and regional conciliation.

What's different there?

The sad fact is that today, if it chose to, Israel could demolish the entire Arab world - without the US lifting a finger. It could - if it chose to - kill virtually every Palestinian, Syrian, and Saudi - with conventional weapons. And we know it has nukes.

So we know that the threats to Israel's existence are empty ones.

And Israel isn't nearly as powerful as the United States. Europe factors in there as well.

So yes, there's a good chance that we will leave the Middle East - for a little while - because as a people we have little stomach for slaughter.

If we do, what do you think will happen? What will happen when Israel feels truly threatened? What will US politics be like when the soccer moms realize that we can't hide behind the walls of the ocean?

It won't be pretty.

One of my first blog posts ever stated that the problem as I saw it was that I didn't want to be apart of a polity that committed genocide.

I still don't.

A.L.

Sorry MMir [#29], you have it wrong, too.

Through his acts of violence and murder, OBL has brought more violence against those he claims to be helping. He is fomenting what he calls "jihad", but it is not the true spiritual jihad. He is simply trying to drum up support and disrupt those who don't support him.

I'm not defending the history of injustice in the Middle East, but terrorist war is only making it worse.

Extremists on both sides are allies, in favor of War and Death, and opposing the forces of Peace and Life. I have criticized George Bush for acting in ways that support Osama bin Laden, supporting the forces of War and Death. You should be criticizing Osama bin Laden for the same thing.

What is different about India and S. Africa?

I was unaware that British troops were still maintaining the empire in S Asia.

Or that the Dutch were still ruling the negroes.

I find your allusion to Isreal being able to annihilate the Muslims confusing. Are you suggesting that you are protecting the Muslims from Isreal?

Are you actually suggesting that? hahahahahaaaaaa...

That has got to be the most assinine contrived non-reasoning I ever heard for the need for america to maintain its hold on the M.E.

Saving the Muslims from Isreal... indeed. Please inform Hezbollah of your insight.

#31

I will criticize Osama Bin Laden just as soon as the US leaves the region.

Actually, MMir, we are. Israel has fought with great restraint against Hezbollah - in large part because they know that the US would respond to any existential threat against them.

If they were alone, I doubt they would be so restrained. You should, too.

A.L.

MMir - there's an old post of mine here that makes the point above (with pictures) a little bit clearer. It's here

A.L.

MMir,

If OBL is sincere in stating his aims (which I doubt), then he is trying to fight fires by throwing gasoline on them.

You wrote of 1993, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2001. Those were not seriously intended to drive the US out of the ME. No one could believe those would work.

They were intended to provoke a reaction. Either retreat, which would make the US look weak, or attack, the more general and unjust the better, since that would alienate and radicalize innocent victims, driving them to join OBL.

He's only trying to accumulate power by provoking US reaction.

If he seriously wanted the US out of the ME, there would be other, longer, but more peaceful roads he could have taken. But he doesn't.

You should criticize him now, before he throws more gasoline on the fire.

Think for yourself about what will achieve peace and justice, and what will achieve only more war and death.

Mr Armed Liberal.

your reasoning is bankrupt.

You are actually claiming that america and the evil it has wrought in Iran and Iraq and elsewhere is morally justified for staying and killing those who would drive them out.

Because otherwise Isreal will commit genocide.

Well I've realized that it's pointless to argue with someone who's either delusion or dishonest.

Though I will post your argument on several Muslim message boards, as I can honestly say I nor anyone over will have ever heard of such an incredible justification for the american blight in our midst.

Beard,

You confuse might with right.

Because Osama lacked the means to deliver military blows that would push the US out, he then is illegitimate in his effort.

I've not heard such twisted arguments ever before.

Your argument boils down to until he or the Muslim states can decisively defeat the US in conventional warfare they have NO RIGHT to irritate the hegemon in their midst. Pathological... does that let you sleep at night?

What would you suggest a bandit with a few hundred followers in Afghanistan do militarily to drive the US out of the M.E.?

I should also have pointed out the complete inaccuracy of Glen's statement about FDR's experience. On the Lend-Lease Act, Republicans voted 135 to 24 against in the House, and 17-109 against in the Senate. Hitler-lovers, I guess.

I don't know how this makes what I said completely inaccurate. The Lend Lease Act gave the president the power to distribute weapons without congressional approval. Try running that one through the current congress.

I've heard enough of John Kerry's bitching about how the money we give to Iraq could have been used to build fire stations in Massachusetts, thanks very much.

OK, Glen, I'll explain more slowly. You wrote

Bush had another obstacle that FDR did not, and one that has not been pointed out enough. His opponents frustrated and ridiculed every attempt to bring Saddam to heel without war, and his efforts to deal with Saddam through the UN did not receive the support they deserved

You haven't made any attempt to explain how ridiculing and threatening the UN inspectors, followed by forcing them to evacuate, was an effort to deal with Saddam through the UN. But you also implied that FDR did not have opponents who tried to frustrate his anti-Hitler efforts that were short of war. Given the history of the America First movement, your claim is somewhere between ahistorical and risible. It's true that after Pearl Harbor, isolationism pretty much disappeared as a respectable stance. It's also true that FDR led us to victory in less time than it took GWB to lead us into a morass. Perhaps you should look there for an explanation of why the American people have abandoned Bush, instead of various Democratic-traitor fantasies.

you who declared war on the Muslims of the M.E. waaaaayy back in 1953.

Since the U.S. took Egypt's side against Britain, France and Israel in the 1956 Suez Crisis, I suppose this is another example of a war the U.S. hasn't been fighting effectively.

And for what it's worth, Musaddiq destroyed Iran's democracy when he began using military thugs, voter intimidation, manipulation of the press, and unconstitutional assertions of "Emergency Powers." When the Shah signed a decree in 1953 dismissing Musaddiq and appointing a new prime minister he was authorized to do under the Iranian Constition. When Musaddiq ignored the order, he left no question that he had become a dictator. I'm sure if America hadn't gotten involved at that point, everything would have worked out peachy for Iran.

AJL, I'm still waiting for you to point out the Churchill I should be following.

MMir:

Thanks for posting here. One of the best things about being Jewish is that antisemites are always nitwits, losers and misf*cks like yourself. The poor, oppressed Arab and Muslim world has taken trillions of dollars from the West for a mineral they couldn't even get out of the ground without Western technology. And they have almost nothing to show for it except limousines, concubines, and a bunch of bloody oppressive regimes. So they blame all their troubles on the Jews.

Andrew:

You haven't made any attempt to explain how ridiculing and threatening the UN inspectors, followed by forcing them to evacuate, was an effort to deal with Saddam through the UN.

The idea that it was us and not Hussein who sabotaged the inspectors is for you to explain, not me.

As for the whole FDR-Bush analogy, or lack of analogy, why don't you take it up with Stephen Green? He's the one who brought it up. I think a more appropriate analogy would be Abraham Lincoln, who faced a Democratic Party that adopted this plank in their platform:

Resolved, That this convention does explicitly declare, as the sense of the American people, that after four years of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war, during which, under the pretense of a military necessity of war-power higher than the Constitution, the Constitution itself has been disregarded in every part, and public liberty and private right alike trodden down, and the material prosperity of the country essentially impaired, justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, with a view of an ultimate convention of the States, or other peaceable means, to the end that, at the earliest practicable moment, peace may be restored on the basis of the Federal Union of the States.

"A cessation of hostilities" was compromise language intended to appease moderates, changed from "immediate and unconditional armistice".

I notice you haven't bothered to explain the reason why congressional Democrats went to Baghdad and kissed Saddam's now-defunct ass. Even the 1864 Democrats didn't go to Richmond and endorse Jefferson Davis.

MMir:

Though I will post your argument on several Muslim message boards...

So that's how he came to be exposed to the Videodrome signal.

What is different about India and S. Africa?

They have cultures that, especially in India's case, value education, science, discipline and an objective pursuit of truth. South Africa is so far along with regard to the education part, but their reconciliation work has begun a painful turn towards the pursuit of objective truth and as such has been healing.

The Middle East, on the other hand, is and has been mired in a religious and cultural ideology that puts emotions and wishes ahead of facts. I've been there and experienced that first hand.

The piper has come due for THAT CULTURE, which is what is really at the heart of bin Laden and others. So long as the US exists, so long as the Internet pipes in pictures of what others have achieved while the Arab world has quietly rotted, so long as Israel is an example Arabs CANNOT ignore of what CAN be done -- but what Arabs have failed to do ...

so long as that is true, it is a painful reminder to the Middle East of Arab failures. bin Laden wishes to wall off those reminders. The Islamacists as a whole are pretending that if they only had the Caliphate back they would live in peace, glory and above all with a sense of self respect that is currently -- and rightly -- lacking today.

Glen, unless Dick Cheney works for Saddam, those quotes up in #4 are your responsibility to explain, not mine. Saddam didn't like inspections, but under pressure he let them resume. Cheney ridiculed them; Bush ended them by starting the invasion. That's just plain fact.

PDShaw, I'm one of those people who thinks a random name out of the phone book would do better. You should have followed Kerry in 2004; he would have been some improvement. Under our presidential (as opposed to parliamentary) system, the choices for change are more limited. Maybe you'd want to get Wes Clark's campaign up.

And how does Iran fit into this? I don't recall any Western troops on Persian soil, and yet they are the Babe Ruth of international terrorism by far. Iran hasnt been held by a western power since Alexander the Great and was never colonized. So Mmir, how does that fit into your little worldview?

The episode with the Shah isnt the most shining light in Anglo-American history certainly, but does that give Iran the right to help tear Lebanon to shreds and basically do to the elected Siniora what the Brits and Americans did to Mossadegh?

Andrew - let's recall what pressure looked like - something many people seem to have forgotten - 150,000 troops on his border. How long could we have maintained that? And what would the costs have been?

A.L.

Mmir,

Stick around and discuss the issues with some smart people who disagree with you. You might learn something, and you might teach them something.

If you provide the URLs for your Muslim blogs, I for one would enjoy lurking for a while to see whether there is one that is open to rational discussion, and then perhaps entering into some discussions.

In [#38] you agree that OBL is (or was back then) "a bandit with a few hundred followers in Afghanistan". This indeed means that, if military means are the only means, then asymmetric warfare (terrorism) is the only choice. Mao Tse Tung and others provide seminal texts in how to do this. The problem is, they still end up failing in most cases. (How's Mao's China doing these days? Looks pretty capitalist to me.) There are other methods that are more successful, though slower. AL has already recommended looking at India and South Africa, and I would add the Phillippines. More on this for subsequent discussion.

Your original point in [#29] is one I would like to see more discussion of here. Many people on this blog believe in a "Domino Theory", that the clear intent of Islam is to take over the entire world, so the USA can't give an inch, no matter how justified. (Remember the "Domino Theory" from Communism?)

Can you shed light on that? There are folks around here who like to quote various verses from the Quran to support this Islamic Imperialist ideology, but there are verses from the Quran on lots of sides of the issue. Where do you stand? And how does your personal opinion on this issue relate to the opinions of various people and organizations fighting the USA.

This is an issue where increased understanding could make a significant positive difference for people on both sides.

What say you?

I'll echo Beard's invitation. We may all learn something. To that end - as much as MMir's views may push large buttons in people, I'm going ask that the level of ad hominem and backhanding get held to zero in this thread, and I'll personally be ruthless in pulling comments that - even though I or Joe may agree with the sentiments - go down that path.

Let's see if we can have a fruitful and educational dialog.

A.L.

#49 - Let's see, A.L. Bush is planning on immuring the same 150K troops for another five years in the midst of a chaotic civil war, and this is somehow easier and less costly than keeping them in readiness if the U.N. inspections are thwarted!? Even supposing that this level of threat were necessary, it would have been accomplished with far less monetary cost and loss of life than what actually occurred. Irony is dead.

Andrew - you ask the exactly correct question. For grins, though - what are the regional effects of that many US troops stationed in the Gulf states? How long will Congress fund the deployment? For how long will the threat be credible?

What are the impacts in our relations with the Muslim world? We're still acting like a hegemon - and a timid one, which poses it's own risks...

You're right to ask the question,but I'll suggest that the answers aren't quite so simple.

A.L.

"let's recall what pressure looked like - something many people seem to have forgotten - 150,000 troops on his border. How long could we have maintained that? And what would the costs have been?"

I think we have an answer to both questions ready at hand.

At least 3 and half years and at least 200 billion dollars.

And the benefits? fewer deaths & a less strategically powerful Iran, a less-taxed military. Probably could have had a higher proportion of a "coalition" troops helping out.

All in all, it seems it would have been the better course than the one chosen.

oh well, live and learn.

Addendum to A.L's questions:

How would Iraq's 10, 15, 20 years of noncompliance with UN resolutions help or hurt international efforts to prevent Iran from going nuclear?

What are the long-term regional impacts of a continued American policy of breaking the Iraqi state as a means of encouraging compliance with UN resolutions? (this is an alternative hypothetical to the presumed phase-out of the sanctions regime under the oil scandal)

Would MMir, and those with similar views, still think the U.S. was at war with Muslims?

Could Saddam's death (in the alternative world) set off a civil war / regional conflict in which the U.S. would be called upon to send troops to Iraq to stop fighting that was a foreseeable result of the effort of three successive administrations to destabilize Iraq. Would U.S. casualties be higher or lower in this scenario? If the U.S. refused to send troops into a civil war, what are the long-term diplomatic consequences for U.S. foreign policy?

No, I don't really expect any answers to these questions.

There's another aspect to this issue that tends to be forgotten.

The US and to some degree the UK bore the costs of enforcing the sanctions on Iraq. German and French companies, many with close relationships to their governments, benefited under the table through bypassing the sanctions and selling forbidden technology. Lots of individuals benefitted under the table through the Oil for Food bribes.

But the US and the UK footed the bill for the constant air patrols etc. Pilots I know say privately we were wearing out our airplanes doing it. The US Air Force Academy had trouble filling rotating faculty positions with rated officers because, combined with the Clinton drawdown of the military, there just weren't enough pilots to free up for the Academy due in good part to the monitoring flights. That means cadets weren't getting training and leadership socialization from officers with operational flight experience - a hidden but real cost.

Moreover, the corruption and the porousness of the sanctions were undercutting them to the point that many (including some in this country) openly lobbied to remove them entirely.

I'm deeply unpersuaded by hypothetical histories that assume the sanctions were holding and would have been relatively easy and relatively cheap to maintain.

AL-

Andrew - let's recall what pressure looked like - something many people seem to have forgotten - 150,000 troops on his border. How long could we have maintained that? And what would the costs have been?

As other people have pointed out, the costs would likely have been less than what we've paid by having those troops in Iraq for the past 4 years.

But hell, let's say that we brought a lot of those troops home after the inspectors were allowed in. If the inspectors had finished their job, then great, the US would have gotten what it nominally wanted - doubtless Iraq hawks would have wanted to invade for other reasons, but they would have been forced to argue and debate those reasons in public, rather than hiding behind the specter of WMDs.

If the inspectors had been thwarted and/or kicked out by Saddam, then Bush would have had a far stronger case for going to the UN and arguing that Saddam needed to be removed for noncompliance. And regardless of if the UN bought in or not, the American people would have been far more united, post 9-11, against a Saddam openly thwarting weapons inspections than against a Saddam who, at the time of invasion, was actually letting inspectors in the country.

(And spare me the "we did nothing when Saddam kicked inspectors out in the '90s, so why would things have been different later?" The political will generated by September 11 would have been the difference.)

I know you're committed, AL, even at this late date, to rationalizing the invasion as the best option available at the time, but even at the time there were far smarter ways of handling the situation.

And, PD Shaw, most of the questions you ask are, in slightly modified form, applicable to the current situation, with fairly dire answers.

All that said, I should congratulate WoC for its response to the Fumento thing... it's just unfortunate that the same intellectual honesty hasn't been applied to Iraq.

most of the questions you ask are, in slightly modified form, applicable to the current situation

Ummmm, how can I say this? OF COURSE, THEY ARE. The questions suggest that some of the problems with Iraq preceded Bushitler and would have existed regardless of Bushitler. They are problems that can't be solved with the incredible time machine the Democrats plan to unveil in 2008.

Again, what were the trend lines before the invasion? Increasing corruption, decreasing literacy rates, increasing child and infant mortality rates, collapsing incomes, increasing unemployment, increasing crime, increasing religiosity, deteriorating infrastructure (water, sanitation, electricity), reversals on women's rights, increasing disease, decreasing access to health care, increasing sectarian divisions and if you believe terrorists were in Iraq without Saddam's knowledge and approval, then the country had lost the ability to prevent itself from becoming a haven for terrorists.

These were all foreseeable and in some instances arguably intended consequences of three administrations of policy. Many of these things might be worse now. That's not the point. The point is that these trends also provide the ingredients for turning Iraq into a failed state, a Somalia in the Arab heartland. An outcome that is still on the table. And unfortunately, very few public officials appear willing to acknowledge the danger and discuss what to do about it.

Chris, we differ one one simple thing - I don't believe that it would have made awhit of difference politically -internationally or domestically - if we had stood up (moved troops to the Iraqi borders), Saddam had gamed the inspectors for a while, we then stood down, he ejected them, and we started over again - three or four times.

The results within Iraq would have been no different. The domestic politics would have been no different- sorry, the people who originally opposed the war opposed sanctions and would have opposed pretty much any action. The international politics would have been no different.

We'd have kicked the can down the road for three or four years, and we'd be - today - where we were in 2002. Yes, we'd have had better data about the state of his internal WMD programs - and that's worth something.

But the reality is that the real strategic justification for Iraq wasn't the exact state of Saddam's program (and yes, Bush screwed the pooch by letting himself get painted into that rhetorically lazy corner).

A.L.

"If the inspectors had been thwarted and/or kicked out by Saddam, then Bush would have had a far stronger case for going to the UN and arguing that Saddam needed to be removed for noncompliance"

This only makes sense if you ignore Saddams entire history of defying the UN. Lets play another quick what if- what if Bush didnt go back to the UN in the fall of 2002 and invaded at that point. Lets further say we ended up in exactly the same position we are in today. Wouldn't people like yourself be making the identical argument above... that if Bush had given the UN one last chance to get Saddam in line he would have had a much stronger case? But it didnt turn out that way, because the UN was never going to hold Saddams feet to the fire and those against removing Hussein were never going to believe Bush had given him enough chances. The idea that one more round of red light green light with Saddam was going to convince anyone one way or another is hard to swallow.

Ummmm, how can I say this? OF COURSE, THEY ARE. The questions suggest that some of the problems with Iraq preceded Bushitler and would have existed regardless of Bushitler. They are problems that can't be solved with the incredible time machine the Democrats plan to unveil in 2008.

Nobody on this thread is attacking Bush with that term; near as I can tell the only people who use it with any regularity are Iraq hawks trying to smear their opponents. Cut out the BS and address the issues on the table.

These were all foreseeable and in some instances arguably intended consequences of three administrations of policy. Many of these things might be worse now. That's not the point.

No? Seems to me that many people were arguing things might have been better had we acted other than we did - if things are worse now, then that's very much the point. You saying many of these factors would around either way doesn't negate the argument that some of them probably would have been better.

The point is that these trends also provide the ingredients for turning Iraq into a failed state, a Somalia in the Arab heartland. An outcome that is still on the table. And unfortunately, very few public officials appear willing to acknowledge the danger and discuss what to do about it.

Yes. And hell, I'll cut to the chase - Iraq is a failed state, will probably more of a failed state in the future, and there's almost certainly gonna be nothing substantial the US can do about it in the next decade because of the way the Iraq war has poisoned our political will. We had one chance to get it right, and we blew it. I have no happy words to say about it - this is the real world, and when somebody f&*#s up as badly as GWB and his supporters did, the consequences are, and probably should be, disastrous.

And at this point, if the rest of the country learns not to trust you freaking hawks with your grandiose plans to remake the world through force, and learns to see past all the BS arguments about how this is just like WW2, and how the Democrats are a bunch of Chamberlain-eque appeasers, that's about as much as I can hope for.

Chris, we differ one one simple thing - I don't believe that it would have made awhit of difference politically -internationally or domestically - if we had stood up (moved troops to the Iraqi borders), Saddam had gamed the inspectors for a while, we then stood down, he ejected them, and we started over again - three or four times.

Great, except that's not what I'm saying we should have (or would have) done. GWB said at the UN we'd give Saddam one last chance, and had Saddam ejected weapons inspectors again, then we wouldn't have tried to get them back in - we would have called for outright invasion. And we would have been justified in doing so.

The results within Iraq would have been no different. The domestic politics would have been no different- sorry, the people who originally opposed the war opposed sanctions and would have opposed pretty much any action. The international politics would have been no different.

I can see why you'd like to think this, but it's ridiculous on its face. The people who originally opposed the war weren't powerful enough to stop the war even when Bush torpedoed his own arguments by yanking the inspectors out early - so why would they have been more able to stop the war with a clear act of defiance on Hussein's part?

Y'all have been arguing for years now as if a war opponent is a war opponent is a war opponent, and no amount of provocation on Hussein's part would have changed their minds. I think the last four years have proven the exact opposite - that most of the American public is persuadable depending on what's happening on the ground, and that while many people were willing to give their Commander in Chief the benefit of the doubt, the reality of the situation has turned them against him. I'm not saying that waiting to see if Saddam kicked the inspectors out again would have absolutely made things better in the long run - I rather suspect GWB would have mismanaged this war regardless - but I do think that not starting it with the black eye of "We really need to get weapons inspectors in there - no wait, I didn't really want that, I just want to kick Saddam's ass" would have given it less opposition and more support to begin with, and perhaps a marginally better outcome today.

But the reality is that the real strategic justification for Iraq wasn't the exact state of Saddam's program (and yes, Bush screwed the pooch by letting himself get painted into that rhetorically lazy corner).

And yet, the White House knew - and I'm suspecting you do too - that while the country would allow its troops to be sent overseas in the name of self defense (however questionable the hard evidence) it wouldn't have supported the grand domino theory that y'all were so happily championing back in the day. And regardless of what arguments you might have made, AL, you loudly and energetically supported the guy who'd misrepresent "the real strategic justification" to get the war he wanted, rather than tell the truth about what he wanted to do and risk having to stay home.

This only makes sense if you ignore Saddams entire history of defying the UN. Lets play another quick what if- what if Bush didnt go back to the UN in the fall of 2002 and invaded at that point. Lets further say we ended up in exactly the same position we are in today. Wouldn't people like yourself be making the identical argument above... that if Bush had given the UN one last chance to get Saddam in line he would have had a much stronger case? But it didnt turn out that way, because the UN was never going to hold Saddams feet to the fire and those against removing Hussein were never going to believe Bush had given him enough chances. The idea that one more round of red light green light with Saddam was going to convince anyone one way or another is hard to swallow.

Yes, I would have argued that we should have given the weapons inspectors a chance to work - the same argument I'm making now, because they never really got a chance to work regardless. But the key point is not that the UN would have been galvanized to take action - I honestly don't know how this would have affected international opinion - but that anti-war people in the US would have had much less of an argument to make that GWB only wanted war, and never cared about WMD inspections at all. And, again, I can only say that would have been the case for myself, and, I suspect, for many others. But if you choose to believe that people's attitudes on the war are entirely independent of what came before... well, then clearly nothing I say is gonna change your mind, Mark.

Chris,

If the tends on all social/economic/political indicators steadily go down year after year, there is a good chance they will continue to go down year after year. This is particularly true if the presumptive cause of the trend, the sanction regime, continues unchanged. When I say that many of these factors might be worse than before the invasion, I am not saying that they are necessarily worse than had there been no invasion. Had there been no invasion, I presume many of these factors would continue to have gotten worse. Unless the sanctions were withdrawn or failed.

Iraq is not a failed state. I don't think Biden thinks so. Things can get a lot worse. I probably don't agree with Biden's plan, but he seems to be the only Democratic leader engaged at a substantive level.

Two-thirds of Democrats are isolationists now. My WWII analogy is not that they are traitors, but they are the equivalent of the pre-Pearl Harbor Republicans that thought that staying out of European affairs was in the national interest. That giving Britain a million feet of fire hose in anticipation of the bombing raids was the wrong thing to do. I don't queston their patriotism, I question their judgment and foresight and will. Let history decide. I'm just a guy with an opinion.

Doesn't agree with Iraq War is not the same as isolationist. I'm not sure I've heard any Democratic leader call for withdrawal from Afghanistan, and speaking for myself, I think it would be worth increasing our involvement there to see if that, at least, can be rescued from Bush's reverse Midas touch.

Just what goal are we seeking in Iraq now? No one is thinking of a secular democracy. Am I correct that we're just hoping to cobble up some arrangement that will not expand into either a regional war (Turks vs. Kurds, Iranian Shia vs. Saudi and Jordanian Sunnis, whatever) or a failed state that provides the haven for non-state terrorists, something even worse than under Saddam. (Speaking of worse than Saddam, notwithstanding the end of sanctions, the average Iraqi's quality of life is no better than it was under Saddam.) And as I pointed out before, we also are stuck hoping against hope that the New Iraq won't be a close ally of Iran, despite the obvious reasons that they will. We're in Hail Mary mode to try to salvage something from a situation that even if we are "successful" is probably worse than where we started.

The Bush Administration's strategy was unable to

• secure weapons and ammunition depots;
• secure government buildings (except the all-important Oil Ministry);
• bring electricity beyond pre-war output;
• bring oil output beyond pre-war levels;
• prevent increasing levels of sectarian violence;
• protect religious minorities from persecution;
• retain the skilled middle-class to assist in reconstruction. That's just off the top of my head. Do you really think the same cast of clowns will accomplish the goals of the Surge (whatever they may be, as I don't find them particularly clear), or will this be another opportunity for you to rehearse the same excuses for failure that sustain you through all the failures I've already listed? George Bush, in case you are wondering, has indicated why we'll succeed this time. It has nothing to do with materiél, training, Arabic and cultural training, or anything like that, though.

  In an interview, Pelosi also said she was puzzled by what she considered the president's minimalist explanation for his confidence in the new surge of 21,500 U.S. troops that he has presented as the crux of a new "way forward" for U.S. forces in Iraq. "He's tried this two times — it's failed twice," the California Democrat said. "I asked him at the White House, 'Mr. President, why do you think this time it's going to work?' And he said, 'Because I told them it had to.' [my emphasis]"

  If that's all it takes, why didn't he think of that before!? If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.

AJL:

I'm not sure I've heard any Democratic leader call for withdrawal from Afghanistan ...

You'd be hard pressed to find a Democratic leader who missed the VIP screening of Fahrenheit 9/11. I haven't heard one of them comment on Michael Moore's view of Afghanistan - except for former DNC chairman (and Hillary's new consiglieri) Terry McAuliffe, who stated that Moore convinced him that we invaded Afghanistan so we could build a gas pipeline.

It is true that congressional Democrats overwhelmingly supported the invasion of Afghanistan, and have refrained from mouth-kissing insurgent Afghan warlords. (Although warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar has been loudly stating that the Democrat's capture of congress is a victory for Afghan insurgents and will force a US withdrawal.) Most of the Democratic rhetoric against Iraq could be easily applied to Afghanistan, especially the maudlin anti-war rhetoric, and would be if they didn't have Iraq to pile on. The Democrats are right that Iraq is a diversion - it's diverting them.

Your statement that nothing was secured except the Oil Ministry is false, Andrew. "No blood for oil" is beneath you.

I'll be glad to eat all of these words if Mommy of the House Pelosi and the rest of the Donk power-fiends support an increased commitment in Afghanistan as you suggest.

Glen [#66],

Please tell me if I am correct in summarizing your post as follows:
(1) Virtually all Democratic leaders listened to Michael Moore's views on Afghanistan.
(2) Virtually all Democratic leaders voted for the invasion of Afghanistan.
(3) Democratic leaders haven't critized the invasion of Afghanistan the way they criticized the invasion of Iraq, but in my [Glen's] opinion, they could have.
(4) Andrew is wrong.
(5) I'll eat these words if [sophomoric characterizations omitted] vote the way I want.

I don't know the probability of (5), but if it does happen, I would appreciate a digital photo of you eating a (small) printout.

Indeed, on further research we also protected the Defense Ministry building. But not much else. Agence France Presse thus:

Since US forces rolled into central Baghdad a week ago, one of the sole public buildings untouched by looters has been Iraq's massive oil ministry, which is under round-the-clock surveillance by troops. The imposing building in the Al-Mustarisiya quarter is guarded by around 50 US tanks which block every entrance, while sharpshooters are positioned on the roof and in the windows. The curious onlooker is clearly unwelcome. Any motorist who drifts within a few metres of the main entrance is told to leave immediately. Baghdad residents have complained that US troops should do more to protect against the looters, most of them Shi'ite Muslims repressed by Saddam Hussein's Sunni-dominated regime who live in the vast slum known as Saddam City [now Sadr City–AJL] on the northern outskirts. But while museums, banks, hotels and libraries have been ransacked, the oil ministry remains secure.

Of course, this isn't surprising, as SecDef Chauncey Gardiner mused in his inimitable way

After the first reports of looting at Iraq’s museums, when the first questions were raised about the failure of the forces to intervene, the initial comments of the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, signalled that the US did not think that protection of antiquities and art was a priority. At a news conference last Friday, he blamed press coverage for inflating the problem: "The images you are seeing on television you are seeing over and over and over, and it’s the same picture of some person walking out of some building with a vase, and you see it 20 times, and you think, ‘My goodness, were there that many vases? Is it possible that there were that many vases in the whole country?’"

I think I see a pattern: bad news and potential problems are just laughed away as untrue exaggerations of the media. That, too, became our modus operandi. Just think how much better the situation might be if Rumsfeld had been fired right then and replaced by someone interested in reconstructing Iraq instead of showing of the potency of America's military phallic symbols!

AJL:

I may have been imprecise in my language (and on double-checking off on the numbers), but this was my point:

According to Pew polls

The percentage of Americans who agree that the "U.S. should mind its own business internationally [and let other countries get along the best they can on their own]" has risen from 30% in 2002 to 42% currently. Isolationist sentiment is growing particularly among Democrats and independents. More than half of Democrats (55%) now say the United States should mind its own business internationally up from 40% in 2002; among independents, 42% express that view now, compared with 27% three years ago.

These are self-identified Democrats, not necessarily leaders. Despite Pew's assurance that these numbers are similar to those recorded during the height of the Vietnam War and the end of the Cold War, these numbers are technically the highest polled (though by only a percentage point).

I am not a Republican or Democrat; there is nothing triumphant about this observation.

"I think I see a pattern: bad news and potential problems are just laughed away as untrue exaggerations of the media. That, too, became our modus operandi. Just think how much better the situation might be if Rumsfeld had been fired right then and replaced by someone interested in reconstructing Iraq instead of showing of the potency of America's military phallic symbols!"

I think this is largely true. I give Rumsfeld some leeway for the first couple of weeks after the shooting war ended because honestly no-one had any idea exactly how the war was going to go or end or what Iraq would look like at that point.

The inexcuseable part was the utter lack of flexibility to recognize what was happening and what a limited window of opportunity there was to accomplish the following obvious requirements of an occupation/anti-insurgency:

1)Seal the borders to limit the amount of foriegn interference. This is an much an engineering job as a quantity of soldier problem. Land mines, razor wire, and berms handilly replace thousands of troops.

2)Make the potential insurgents (Baathists, Sadrites, general criminals) fear US forces. This has been a mixed bag. Retreating from Fallujah (see point 1 for the cause of that) was a major disaster, and retaking it only partially restored our credibility. Restrictive rules of engagement and wholesale catch and release of red-handed insurgents made taking potshots and friendly forces commonplace and lucrative instead of suicidal.

3)Make the average Iraqis everyday life demonstrably better. Here we have utterly failed. To this day the average Iraqi is living with a few hours of electricity a day. In the desert. One of the richest oil producers in the world has to line up for gasoline for hours. These are the kind of things that make people shrug when their neighbor hosts a Syrian jihadi. These are the kinds of things the United States is MONSTROUSLY GOOD AT FIXING. Total, abject, inexcuseable failure. The Iraqi power grid to this day is producing just over what Saddam was. Think about that. Billions of dollars and 4 years of American supposed industry genius and we can't even produce more power than Saddam did (forget about distro where the insurgents play a roll- this is straight up production). Any wonder why so many iraqis are pissed and eager to start shooting instead of talking? Why not when life sucks and the greatest power in the worlds existance cant even give you a full day of AC?

I'd like to hear Mark Buehner's plan for Iraq. I think I might like it. Certainly better than the more-of-the-same "surge". And he might agree that measures that would have worked well in 2004 may be useless in 2007—leaving us no good alternatives.

I do have one quibble with his last post. Electricity generation has again fallen far below pre-war levels.

Total, abject, inexcuseable failure.

No. It's not - not in the sense you are alleging. See my comment on the other thread regarding the power situation.

AJL, you DO remember the director of that museum later admitting he had (a) hidden many of the antiquities that he reported stolen and (b) had exagerated the looting to make the US look bad.

You do remember that and would have quoted it for balance, right?

"No. It's not - not in the sense you are alleging. See my comment on the other thread regarding the power situation. "

Have to completely disagree Moon, and i explained why on the other thread. We have to take a much larger view of our responsibilities in Iraq. If the Iraqis insist on bungling their electricity, we have to take it over, because we are ultimately paying the price for it. If the political and physical price of doing so is too high, we should leave Iraq.