I’m sure you’re right when you say, “that's not what many Americans and politicians want to hear.” Culturally, waiting doesn’t seem to be our strong point. The surge is barely out of the driveway and we’re crying, “Are we there yet?” I get the feeling it’s going to be a long trip. I just hope Dad doesn’t get fed up and turn the car around.

Good stuff as always sir. Thank you. Just one question, where are the other 70 words? I only count 580.

Abby, those missing words are the ones in which one has to read between the lines .

America is not known for taking the long view, either in the public or private sector. We are an amazing country, hopefully we can, at the end of the day, do this job right.

The upcoming presidential election doesn't help; very partisan, self-serving postures by too many of our political class. Hopefully we will have sufficient competent leadership to continue on for a bit longer.

How long? Darned if I know, but to quit now would neither be in America's nor the Middle East's best interest.

Criminy! It's too late here on the East Coast for me to go out and buy a copy!

My 96 year-old grandma lives for her copy of the Daily News. She reads it from cover to cover and does the crosswords. It's so cool that she'll be reading your article.

Seems like we'll never know if anything we did in Iraq worked until we pull our troops out and let the Iraqis try to run their country on their own.

You're not really riding a bike if your dad is still holding it up...

Wow, I would consider this an extremely positive article given it comes from such liberal quarters. I will wait with a positive attitude toward a surge that will work and an invitation from the Iraqis to stay in country in some force for some time. I do believe this will be the outcome. Our new embassy, our military and our diplomats will work the miracles of the next thirty years to create a more peaceful Middle-East for the future. Imagine how much sooner this will come to fruition if all of our doubting Thomases, political opportunists/sabateurs and naysayers just 'shut up' for a while.

Betty

"There is only one thing to do: Wait."

Your 650 words condensed to eight.

To which I would add; How long? Is 2 more years
enough?

Michael I truly appreciate your work and unique and most TRUTHFUL view. I am so saddened at most reporting about the ME in general, so you are an unbelievable breath of fresh air. I am so curious about your perspective about another matter...what do you think about Iran? Also, you really should look up terrorist bloopers on youtube. It's funny. If the terrorists weren't so serious about ending and obliterating our civilization - they would be funny. I say funny because they are so focused on death....and not on life. Also you should pick up The Gifts of the Jews a book by Thomas Cahill. It's fabulous.

Best of luck,

Natalie

feel free to email me if you would like at nwetjen@gmail.com

Maybe the question should be: How much money do we have to spend before we can leave Iraq?, Semant.

Bush is asking every single American family to kick in $2000 next year for the neocon's social experiment in Iraq.

Money that most American families, no doubt, have much more pressing uses for.

"Maybe the question should be: How much money do we have to spend before we can leave Iraq?, Semant."</i.-e

On the other hand maybe it isn't. I'm sure that in 1944 most Americans could have found a 'better' use for the VAST assets being 'wasted' on the War Effort.

I believe that I will conclude at this point because I feel a bout of 'intolerance' about to beset me. Bad for me ; worse for you.

"I'm sure that in 1944 most Americans could have found a 'better' use for the VAST assets being 'wasted' on the War Effort."

Perhaps you can list your evidence of waste, and/or comparable progress starting with the Allies landing at Normandy. Or would you like to use another VN analogy on the Iraq Model?

dougf,

Please don't compare WWII to the Iraq fiasco, it just identifies you as unserious.

At this point in the game, I think it's fair to talk about what cost the perpetual war crowd will be willing to pay if they are wrong.

At the very least, Petraeus and his brain trust should be willing to be busted back to buck privates and receive dishonorable discharges.

Pro-war pundits should be barred from ever offering up an opinion for money again.

Bush's Texas crony corporations that get a fat slice of the now $15 billion a month we're spending "in" Iraq should be seized and sold to pay down the war debt.

And the few citizens who still support the Iraq experiment should register to take in an Iraqi refugee if things go bad.

Put all that on the table and I'd back another spin of the nation-building roulette wheel...

Michael,

You recommend that we wait. How long? The nine years that General Petraeus recommends?

Just how would we manage that seeing that the Army will run out of fresh soldiers next April? Are we to reinstitute the draft? How can we physically maintain the surge if our soldiers are running on empty? Does not this do major harm to our ability to counter some other hot war elsewhere? If our forces are exhausted how is that good for our national security?

Secondly, how can we wait when all talk is about EXPANDING the war into Iran? How does expanding the war into Iran benefit our surge? How does making 100 million MORE people make our surge a success?

If the purpose of the surge is to make peace in Iraq, then why do we continue rattling our sabers at Iran? How does that make things better for our surge? Does not instigating Iran, making them feel wary, actually run COUNTER to the purposes of the surge, which is to make Iraq a peaceful nation? If we goad Iran into attacking us, does that not significantly degrade the peace in the Middle East?

I want to see a peaceful Middle East, but I keep hearing all the wrong things from supporters of this war. I cannot in good conscience support you guys if you keep talking like this.

If you really want this surge to succeed, you must STOP badgering Iran. It doesn't matter what Iran does. Let them do what they like. The more we highlight what they do, the more they will do it. What's the point in that? It certainly does nothing to improve security in Iraq, and therefore detrimental to the surge.

If you want the surge to succeed, you must STOP killing civilians even accidentally. Airstrikes MUST stop! They are so detrimental, that I really wonder if General Petraeus really wrote that counterinsurgency manual. Does he not realize that any civilian death is a significantly detrimental step backwards in a counterinsurgency?

You are correct that there are areas of Iraq where peace seems to have come. But I honestly don't see how they are the result of the surge. In Anbar province, for example, it wasn't the surge that convinced the local Sunni sheiks to turn against Al-Qaeda. They began turning against Al-Qaeda last September, months before the surge began. More American soldiers died this summer as compared to last summer. Iraqis continue dying at an alarming rate. So just what has the surge actually done?

Has the surge succeeded in its stated goals of allowing room for political reconciliation? Nope. I don't see any political solutions right now in Iraq. Parliament members are leaving the government in droves. There is talk of a coup. These are not signs of progress! How can anyone claim otherwise?

So what are we waiting FOR, exactly? We passify the place, eventually there's a government that can keep it up, and even longer after that, there's some kind of economy?

Is that economy going to be just another oil-based one, where whoever controls the oil controls the entire country? Saudi Arabia without the royal family?

Or do we expect Iraq to join places like China and invite in factories making cheap goods, for $1 an hour? Would Iraqis take those jobs, even assuming multinationals wanted to invest in the area, assuming the infrastructure was up to it, and assuming they could underbid places like China or India?

I'd still like someone to report on the Kurdish areas, what their economy looks like and what keeps it going? If it's just American military spending and oil, that doesn't look sustainable.

If you really want this surge to succeed, you must STOP badgering Iran...Does not instigating Iran, making them feel wary, actually run COUNTER to the purposes of the surge, which is to make Iraq a peaceful nation? If we goad Iran into attacking us, does that not significantly degrade the peace in the Middle East?

Dan, I don't support an overt military action against Iran, but really, you protest a bit too much here. Are you just driven to bouts of hysteria when anyone says something positive about the US military?

Michael didn't even mention Iran in his Daily News piece. What is prompting this verbal flailing?

Shave! That is all.
some amog

I still want to know what country (or city) dan lives in. Anybody know?

Please don't compare WWII to the Iraq fiasco, it just identifies you as unserious.

At this point in the game, I think it's fair to talk about what cost the perpetual war crowd will be willing to pay if they are wrong.

At the very least, Petraeus and his brain trust should be willing to be busted back to buck privates and receive dishonorable discharges.

Pro-war pundits should be barred from ever offering up an opinion for money again.

What's wrong with using the WWII analogy? We had less wealth then and a much more volatile economy. We can better afford to fight now then we ever could before, or don't your numbers admit that?

If you can show incompetence, by all means try a run at Petraeus. Everybody I've spoken to who has met him is tremendously impressed with his intelligence and competence. You seem to be operating on the bewildering notion that that military leaders who are right never lose. Grant and Sherman both lost fights, but they won the war against better generals.

Finally, I'm sure that the pro-war faction would be happy to give up all pay for speaking engagements if the anti-war side did. It's not like the pro-war people can't get real jobs outside of a university. How many anti-war activists go on to become Fortune 500 CEO's anyway? A lot fewer than come from the military, but then the corporate world is looking for different kind of leadership. Competent leadership is not a key anti-war virtue anymore, is it?

Patrick,

Maybe we should wait until another freeway bridge falls down before we discuss whether we can "afford" to bet another $180,000,000,000 on Iraq next fiscal year, okay?

As for Petraeus, his rep seems to be based on his work in Mosul and training the Iraqi army...both utter failures as far as I can see.

If the pro-war crowd set the bar for military intelligence and competence any lower, it would be underground.

If you want the surge to succeed, you must STOP killing civilians even accidentally.

"Even" accidentally?

Let's assume that was just a brain-o.

Airstrikes MUST stop! They are so detrimental, that I really wonder if General Petraeus really wrote that counterinsurgency manual. Does he not realize that any civilian death is a significantly detrimental step backwards in a counterinsurgency?

The idea that General Petraeus doesn't understand the consequences of civilian casualties... did you expend even an ounce of thought while vomiting up that rambling rant?

I'm reminded of Truman Capote's famous critique of Jack Kerouac:

"That's not writing, that's typing."

Mary,

Dan, I don't support an overt military action against Iran, but really, you protest a bit too much here. Are you just driven to bouts of hysteria when anyone says something positive about the US military?

No I don't. Just look at all the evidence around you about how neo-cons are pressing for war with Iran. This question of expanding the war with Iran MUST be asked in relation to the surge, because any expansion of warfare will dramatically affect the purposes of the surge, which is to LESSEN violence, not increase it. If you expand the war into a whole other country, you increase the violence dramatically, and therefore completely undermine the purposes of the surge. Unless of course the point of the surge is a complete lie and is really meant just to kick the can down to the next administration.

I'm not overreacting about Iran. The White House wants war with Iran. The White House must be stopped.

How does this change things?

The radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr said Wednesday that he was suspending for six months his Mahdi Army militia’s operations, including attacks on American troops, only hours after his fighters waged running street battles with Iraqi government forces for control of Karbala, one of Iraq’s holiest cities.

I think this is what the future in Iraq will look like...

Endgame: American Options in Iraq
http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,147308,00.html

EmbersFire,

That is a very interesting article, however, I'm actually surprised that the author, who writes pretty lucidly, seems to not understand that the real power in the Middle East is not Iran, but Saudi Arabia. The author writes:

The weakness of this strategy is that it opens the door for Iran to dominate Iraq. Unless the Turks wanted to fight the Iranians, there is no regional force that could stop Iran from moving in, whether covertly, through the infiltration of forces, or overtly. Remember that Iran and Iraq fought a long, vicious war -- in which Iran suffered about a million casualties. This, then, simply would be the culmination of that war in some ways. Certainly the Iranians would face bitter resistance from the Sunnis and Kurds, and even from some Shia. But the Iranians have much higher stakes in this game than the Americans, and they are far less casualty-averse, as the Iran-Iraq war demonstrated. Their pain threshold is set much higher than the Americans' and their willingness to brutally suppress their enemies also is greater.

The fate of Iraq would not be the most important issue. Rather, it would be the future of the Arabian Peninsula. If Iran were to dominate Iraq, its forces could deploy along the Saudi border. With the United States withdrawn from the region -- and only a residual U.S. force remaining in Kuwait -- the United States would have few ways to protect the Saudis, and a limited appetite for more war. Also, the Saudis themselves would not want to come under U.S. protection. Most important, all of the forces in the Arabian Peninsula could not match the Iranian force.

The Iranians would be facing an extraordinary opportunity. At the very least, they could dominate their historical enemy, Iraq. At the next level, they could force the Saudis into a political relationship in which the Saudis had to follow the Iranian lead -- in a way, become a junior partner to Iran. At the next level, the Iranians could seize the Saudi oil fields. And at the most extreme level, the Iranians could conquer Mecca and Medina for the Shia. If the United States has simply withdrawn from the region, these are not farfetched ideas. Who is to stop the Iranians if not the United States? Certainly no native power could do so. And if the United States were to intervene in Saudi Arabia, then what was the point of withdrawal in the first place?

I don't think this author understands that Saudi Arabia is a far richer and far more powerful nation than Iran is. For example, Saudi Arabia spends about $30 billion annually on their defense budget, whereas Iran spends about $9 billion. That's over three times as much as Iran. And Iran is the most powerful nation in the Middle East? Please!

Furthermore, Saudi Arabia is already quite strongly involved in the future of Iraq, arming and supplying Sunni insurgents who are killing our soldiers and Shi'ite death squads. They are not some passive entity in the Middle East. They are quite strongly involved.

No, Saudi Arabia is no junior partner with Iran.

Furthermore, Sunni Saudis will never agree to be a junior partner with Shia Iranians. Why any American thinks otherwise is beyond me.

the perpetual war crowd

That just disqualified you as someone serious. Reading the rest of your post only confirmed it.

I'm trying to highlight the positive as well as the negative here, Mike.

From the positive: I understand your position. It's logical in a bubble, i.e. if there were no consequences to waiting and only consequences to aborting. It's logical as an abstraction, "evidence inconclusive. Answer: wait for conclusiveness."
And it's really the most I expected.

From the negative, though, it's going to be two more years of violence and dysfunction for a war that should never have been started, in the name of preventing a hypothetical boogeyman ('genocide when we leave!') or, more honestly, protecting America's prestige, or the self-esteem of the people involved in the project. Another US $100,000,000,000 is a conservative estimate.

And in two years, when things are still violent, dysfunctional, and inconclusive, we'll be asked for two more years. Petraeus is smart, hedges his bets, and says ten years.

I for one, am tired of being asked to underwrite incompetent social change at gunpoint. For any serious antiwar advocate, it's time to stop blogging and get into the streets. The last man, Iraqi or American, to die for our fallacy of control - i.e., a mistake, could come a lot earlier, otherwise.

Patience isn't one of our best qualities as Americans. But it is worth pointing out that this country we live in didn't exactly just pop out of a box and start up in 6 months. It took years to draft and ratify the constitution. And that was from citizens willing and understanding of what it means to live in an independent, democratic nation. I don't see how we can even argue about Iraq taking too much time to get its feet off the ground.

Well, any study of counter-insurgency as run by an occupying force would show Petraeus has the more likely numbers. Since Mao, insurgencies know to hit when they can and disappear when they need to. If we 'pacify' Baghdad and reduce troops, it's likely that the whole mess will simply restart. That's how insurgents fight. Ten years is probably a very good bet.

The problem we have here in the states is one of honesty. The supporters of Bush and the NeoCons can't admit that the Administration, Pehtagon, State Dept and Congress really screwed up. Thinking that we could take Iraq with a handful of soliders, have no concern about insurgency and pay for the war via Oil Revenue was naive, to say the least. Millitary games had been played out and the recommendations (from a year earlier) were completely disregarded in favor of something the American people would buy (fast, cheap and easy). The American people are turning against the war, because it's not fast, cheap and easy.

So now we have the same group that told us it would be fast, cheap and easy (as well as full of WMD's), telling us that we must be patient and that things are improving. yet, this is the same bullshit like that they've been selling for two years. Two years ago we heard "Things are getting better in Iraq, the media simply isn't reporting it!!!" Now, two years later, more people are dying than then. So instead of saying "Sorry, we were wrong, maybe we need to look for other options..." the group remains steadfast in their path. Steadfast in a path that has yet to be right on any count. Wrong on the cost, wrong on the response of the Iraqis, wrong on the WMD's, wrong on the level of violence, wrong on the "imrpovements". On top of that, we have corporations profiting from the war and money being grossly mishandled. Leaving Iraq now would probably result in a horrific massacre, but if the American people can't trust the leadership to be honest and right at least some of the time... there will be a withdraw and a massacre.

Mabe its time that the neo-cons decide if they're going to sacrifice their pride for the good of the Iraqi people... or if they're going to refuse to admit their mistakes as Iraq descends into madness and the American people turn to the liberals.

Ewwww

A speech from an Iraq Vet;

http://www.mnblue.com/brendan_day_story

excerpt;

"I learned to be extremely wary of the Iraqi soldiers and police officers. They had outposts all over the city, but some how they never saw or heard anything when we were attacked. At some point the decision was made to station Iraqi army regulars on our base. For some reason the mortar attacks we endured every few days became more accurate and many of the raids that we went on with them were exercises in futility because the targets seemed to know that American soldiers were on the way before we ever left the wire."

another;

"I learned how to cope with the torment of suicidal thoughts, and that I’m not alone in that. A handful of guys from my unit confessed to me that they are plagued with the same thoughts. If that’s not bad enough, a few developed a nasty little habit known as cutting. If you’re unfamiliar with the term I’ll outline it for you. When someone experiences severe emotional trauma or is put in a position where they must numb themselves from life they may seek to feel something else. Sitting alone in a room with a knife, they cut themselves, and they feel something else."

I don't think this author understands that Saudi Arabia is a far richer and far more powerful nation than Iran is. For example, Saudi Arabia spends about $30 billion annually on their defense budget, whereas Iran spends about $9 billion. That's over three times as much as Iran. And Iran is the most powerful nation in the Middle East?

Saudi Arabia spends more money on defense, but their standard military defenses are remarkably weak. Iran's standard military defenses are also weak. As Mark Steyn said, the combined military forces of the Arab armies make Belgium look butch. Their offical military forces are so weak, they're irrelevant. Probably the strongest Islamist military force in the area is Hezbollah.

The only power these weak states have is in their terrorist paramilitary forces, like al Qaeda and Hezbollah. They use these paramilitary forces to create 'insurgencies', 'separatist' movements and 'militant' actions in nations like Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, India and Thailand. That's how they're fighting their war against the world. If we invaded Iran, we could easily win, but we'd have to deal with the resulting 'insurgent' war. That's why I don't support any overt military action against Iran.

I'm not overreacting about Iran. The White House wants war with Iran. The White House must be stopped.

The administration seems to have finally caught on to the paramilitary/insurgent tactic (it took them long enough), and they seem to be dealing pretty well with Iran's bloviations. There are some bloggers and pundits who are calling for military action against Iran, but the administration's actions don't indicate that they're planning to do anything overt. Any war we fight against Iran will probably involve intelligence agencies, diplomatic wrangling and the use of our unreliable Saudi allies.

Of course, Iran and Saudi arabia are playing their own games, and they're perfectly willing to work together against us when they have to. Their goals are the same as the terrorists they support. The administration apprears not to have caught on to this, and I don't think they ever will.

But, you say "the White house must be stopped?" Most Democrats and the Republicans plan to continue to play the same foreign policy games. How would you plan to "stop" the white house?

"Maybe its time that the neo-cons decide if they're going to sacrifice their pride for the good of the Iraqi people... or if they're going to refuse to admit their mistakes as Iraq descends into madness and the American people turn to the liberals.--Tosk

Ah, Tosk. How I wish you had not used the neo-con thingy. It sounds so 'crass' coming from you. Almost like slumming .

I would probably classify myself as neo-connish, and I am perfectly willing to admit mistakes. I am ,in fact, just reading a book by Ali Allawi --- 'The Occupation of Iraq. Winning the War, Losing the Peace.'--- which sets out many of the 'mistakes' that were made. I'm sure that EVERYONE now understands the errors involved, but in recent memory have you heard ANY politician own up to mistakes unless faced by 8×10 glossies on the front page ? That would take a courage and a set of principles that none of them seem to possess.

I agree with you that what Bush should do is simply say quite plainly that the 'process' was screwed up. Tell it precisely as it was and is. But despite all the carnage(and I REALLY blame the exact Middle-East dysfunction that was one of the reasons for the thing in the first place), the old was every bit as bad as the new and the old had no chance of ever being anything but bad. 'Stability' was not a per se a 'good thing'. So to say that the 'present' invalidates the thing is to ignore the thing that was there in a prior life. According to polls 'most'(by a large margin) Iraqis are still pleased that Saddam and his spawn are feeding the demons as we speak. What they are now pissed about are the exact same things WE are pissed about.

But the foundation problem is as you have stated it --" The American people are turning against the war, because it's not fast, cheap and easy."

It's perhaps not only the 'Administration' that lacks 'honesty'. And Administration 'honesty' at this point would not make things 'fast, cheap, and easy'.

Fast,cheap, and easy is the only way a significant portion of society can handle its reality. That's probably partially why the system is a 'representative' form of rule, and not a more 'direct' form of 'democracy'. It has never trusted those 'fast,cheap, and easy' people to DO anything worthwhile.

Anyhoo, the situation will now trundle on for better or worse until at least 2009. My concern is much more that a system that spends I believe something like 400 BILLION each year on defense, cannot supposedly sustain a 'small' war beyond mid-next year without 'breaking' its boots on the ground components.

What Bush could do for the future is ensure that for 400 BILLION the USA gets a military that can sustain itself even if it means fewer new toys. Toys that will never get used except in a major war which will not occur before the toys become obsolete and become mere hand-me downs.

ps-- I would not have a problem with REAL 'liberals' being turned to by the American People. But there are seemingly none available. Just 'progressives'. Turning to them for foreign policy in a time of crisis, is indicative of a death wish. And you will get what you pay for. Except the payments will be on the installment plan.

"because it's not fast, cheap and easy."

NeoCon mistake #1. All the things they promised.

I'm one of those internationalist interventionist liberal hawks who was in favor of this war, so I suppose in the minds of e, Dan, Glasnost and a few others I ought to have the decency to STFU or possibly even defenestrate myself, but before I consider those options I would like to remind everyone that this is 2007, not 2003, and at this point the only question that really means half a shit is just how soon we will settle for abandonment and a bloodbath. And I have little doubt that is indeed what we will do. I don't have any brilliant ideas of how to avoid it, and I don't know how to avoid the conclusion that abandonment would be an ineradicable stain on the souls on ALL of us, and the end of any chance at international help for victims of genocide or totalitarianism for a generation or two. But I wish the people who keep advocating it would put at least a little energy into thinking of some alternatives, and for a certain subset of those who keep advocating it, I wish they would have the decency to at least feel bad about it.

I would not have a problem with REAL 'liberals' being turned to by the American People. But there are seemingly none available. Just 'progressives'. Turning to them for foreign policy in a time of crisis, is indicative of a death wish.

Uh, doug? The ME is currently an inferno due to the incompetent and ham-fisted foreign policy thrashings of the conservative crowd. It's pretty ballsy to indicate that liberals (or "progressives", the new mot du jour) are bad at it.

C'mon man. Politicians aren't the only ones who won't admit mistakes.

Mary,

But, you say "the White house must be stopped?" Most Democrats and the Republicans plan to continue to play the same foreign policy games. How would you plan to "stop" the white house?

The only thing you can do, continue the pressure on Democrats and Republicans in power. Continue educating Americans of the wrongness of a war with Iran. Eventually, when enough Americans are against it, politicians will have to pay attention because they will lose their positions of power. Heck, we might have another situation as before the Civil War, where the Whigs were relegated to history and transformed into the Republican party because they couldn't keep up with the times.

Short of a full revolution there isn't much more we can do.

But I wish the people who keep advocating it would put at least a little energy into thinking of some alternatives, and for a certain subset of those who keep advocating it, I wish they would have the decency to at least feel bad about it.

I opposed the war, but now feel a great deal of reluctance to advocate anything but escalation, primarily to prevent a humanitarian disaster and a major crisis in the Middle East. But even that, I think, is inevitable at this point.

US troops will probably be coming home in the next year or so, and there will be a bloodbath in Iraq. I hope not, and I hope that the influence of the US is not permanently crushed in the region.

The only bucket of gasoline that remains to be tossed into the flames at this point is whether Bush intends to bomb Iran. I suspect that he does.

In short, I feel really bad about what has happened to Iraq, and worse about what is to come. And alternatives? What alternatives?

Gene,

Your comment seems to indicate that a bloodbath is all but inevitable. No one is sure of it. Heck, don't we currently have a bloodbath in Iraq? I mean, when you have thousands of Iraqis die each month from violence, that, to me, qualifies as a bloodbath.

Who knows, mayhap Sunnis and Shi'ites won't go after each other with the ferocity some claim once we're gone. We won't know until it happens, of course.

The point is, however, that we're talking about what may happen or not happen in Iraq, but we're completely forgetting about the most important point of our mission in Iraq, and that is our soldiers. Come next April, our Army will no longer have any fresh troops to send over to Iraq. Why are we not talking about that? What will happen when next April comes around? Are we going to force our soldiers to stay for an even longer tour? Why are we not preparing them now for that near inevitability? Does not this exhaustion of our best line of defense weaken us from other threats? Is the mission in Iraq worth the cost of not being able to handle other hot wars that might pop up while we're heavily involved in Iraq?

Our soldiers are not machines. They are human beings. If we truly support them, we must talk about how we are using them. We need a strong military. If we keep expending them in an endless mission in Iraq, well, that to me is a complete waste of a most priceless resource: our military. If there is no clear end in sight (and at this point there is no clear end in sight), then there is no point to this mission.

Iraq is now for Iraqis to deal with. Iraq is now for its neighbors to deal with, and yes that means Iran too. We cannot pretend Iran doesn't have a vested interest in what goes on in Iraq. We also cannot pretend to try and prevent Iranian influence in Iraq. It is inevitable. They are neighbors. They share many similar cultural eccentricities. They will be close. Americans cannot do anything about that.

dougf,

I didn't intend neo-con to be a slur. I was referencing the group of conservatives that planned, promoted and executed this war. They call themselves neo-conservatives, I just used their term.

Otherwise, I think we agree on pretty much all the other points. IF Bush, or even if senior senate republicans simply said "American people, we screwed up. We misjudged. We made a very big mistake in the planning and execution of this war... However, if we leave now, there will be horrible bloodshed." Maybe, just maybe if the American people heard honesty for once from Washington... maybe they would be willing to listen to options. Right now, though, the people who backed the mistakes are still the people backing the current plan... that doesn't really give me a good feeling.

The mistakes we made in this war weren't huge revelations. We haven't broken new ground in some futuristic war. I don't know if it was hubris, naivety or simply bad planning... but the planners failed and its the same planners who now back a surge (again crafted to appear as a quick, easy and cheap fix). If anyone expects the American people to stick with this mess (and stick with the Republican party as leaders), someone has to come clean about the whole mess. That means publicly admitting screwups and publicly stating (as our General already has) that this "surge" isn't fast, cheap or easy... in fact, if we hope to succeed in Iraq (whatever the hell that means at this point), its going to be expensive, slow and difficult. Maybe honesty will make up for some of the errors. Then, they're going to have to convince the American people that a slow, expensive and painful process for Americans is worth it.

That's gonna be a hard sell, because as our Commander in Chief once said:

"Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." ;-)

Your comment seems to indicate that a bloodbath is all but inevitable. No one is sure of it.

No, we're not. An accord might be hammered out between the various factions that avoid it. The removal of the US training wheels might push the Iraqis into a position of greater compromise. Enough democratic infrastructure might already be in place to allow a relatively peaceful settling of issues.

But Iraq is and always has been a society under tension. It's currently a humming wasp nest, and the democratic institutions are imposed and new. There isn't much reason to be optimistic.

"C'mon man. Politicians aren't the only ones who won't admit mistakes.--dpu

Hi guy. We have been down this road before methinks. So rather than beat the poor horse again I will merely say, that NOTHING that has been learned about ME society/government/attitudes SINCE the Invasion has altered my conclusions that the place was a MESS long before 2003.

Yes the more obvious destruction now evident IS absolutely resultant from the 2003 Invasion, and as you say "the incompetent and ham-fisted foreign policy thrashings of the conservative crowd". I personally think I could have done a better job than Bush in 'deciding' how to react to events. But sometimes I get delusional so I cannot really confirm that suspicion.

But there remains the question of whether the issues relate to the 'What' or to the 'How'. I still believe in a form of the 'What', although I disdain almost ALL of the 'How'. So I can't really admit my 'mistake' as you urge. The 'process' was absolutely flawed and run by 'idjits'. I accept full responsibility for not seeing earlier how INCOMPETENT they really were.

But the 'thing' that the 'process' was intended to accomplish ---- still not at the , Whoa, that was a truly BAD idea, man.

You seem to think that Iraq is the CAUSE of ALL the obvious problems in the area. I tend more to believe that Iraq is more like a window INTO the problems of the area. Careless and incompetent 'process' has allowed the contagions to become more virulent in much the same way as poorly accomplished surgery will allow infection to grow. But the infection was growing under the surface anyway. Just more slowly and out of sight. It was still as deadly but on a different time frame.

Bush's incompetence has perhaps acted as an 'accerlerant' but the tinderbox was there in place patiently waiting for its time. It was not going away.

Anyhoo, nice to hear from you again after all this time.

ps--- Did you notice that poll that indicated that Muslim support for 'terror' and 'suicide killings' has gone down dramatically over the last 2 years in virtually EVERY region. Except in Palestine of course(colour me surprised). Coincidence ? Perhaps this too is one of the 'results' of 2003 as are the results in Anbar. Maybe allowing the monsters to come out and play in full sunlight is having some 'good' if unintended side effects. Maybe the monsters are losing precisely where they can most ill afford to lose.

Just a thought.

The 'process' was absolutely flawed and run by 'idjits'. I accept full responsibility for not seeing earlier how INCOMPETENT they really were.

Good. That was at least one point of contention a few years back.

You seem to think that Iraq is the CAUSE of ALL the obvious problems in the area. I tend more to believe that Iraq is more like a window INTO the problems of the area.

This is a bit like watching a guy whack a wasp's nest at a picnic with a stick, then say that the resulting sting-a-thon was a pre-existing situation and that the stick-whacking was merely a window into the nature of the wasps.

I just that's a bad idea to go around hitting wasp's nests like that. It doesn't mean that I'm rooting for the wasps, or that I think that wasps are not dangerous, or that I think hitting other things with a stick is always bad.

Did you notice that poll that indicated that Muslim support for 'terror' and 'suicide killings' has gone down dramatically over the last 2 years in virtually EVERY region.

Gwynne Dyer says in his latest book that the best way to end support for al Qaeda would be to let them take over every nation they want to. I think they'd all be hanging from meat hooks within a month.

But do you really think the mess in Iraq is the best way to get that across?

DPU,

Uh, doug? The ME is currently an inferno due to the incompetent and ham-fisted foreign policy thrashings of the conservative crowd. It's pretty ballsy to indicate that liberals (or "progressives", the new mot du jour) are bad at it.

I suppose all those people trying to create Arab racial hegemony or a fundamentalist Islamic Caliphate had nothing to do with the problems? What about the uneducated and impoverished tribal thugs of every race and religion in the area who kill people when their cultural norms are violated?

The Middle East was a basket of snakes before Gutenberg invented movable type, not the pristine wonderland of adaptive and tolerant innocents you assume. The cultures that survive at the source of all cultures are by definition intractable. All the toxic wastes of ten thousand years of civilization reside in this place and have nothing to do with the last six years of American unwillingness to serve as international punching bag.

The incompetent and ham-fisted accommodation of the liberal and realist herds did nothing to stop the violence in the Middle East, either. Rather the opposite.

"Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." ---Tosk

Hmmm, I put this particular verbal effort down to overdosing on the 'Who' at one point in time. ---:-)

What concerns me more than the verbal 'incompetence' which frankly any of us might have if we had to speak out all the time, is the 'hands-off'(to the point of uninvolvement) style of management. That is what,IMO, got us into this mess. As I said to DPU, I have delusuions that I might have done a 'better' job. I'm SURE that you could have. That's pretty sad. I don't care if the President merely grunts his orders as long as he knows what orders to grunt,and can SEE the reality on the ground as it is.

"But do you really think the mess in Iraq is the best way to get that across ?"---dpu

But it IS the way it is getting across, is it not ? Surely the 24-7 coverage of events there has to be considered the 'prime' factor behind this astonishing turn around in 'opinion'. Without the 'window', how could anyone see the 'view' ? Can you think of something else that might be behind the 'shift' ?

ps --This must be a flying pigs day. I actually find myself in agreement with Dyer on something other than the time of day. Maybe on this basis we should just then 'overthrow' ALL the 'moderate' regimes and trade short-term pain for long-term gain. Is that what you were getting at ?--- :-)

This must be a flying pigs day. I actually find myself in agreement with Dyer on something other than the time of day.

Surely not that surprising. You are a conservative, are you not? So is he.

The Middle East was a basket of snakes before Gutenberg invented movable type, not the pristine wonderland of adaptive and tolerant innocents you assume.

Patrick, I get really annoyed when people imagine what I think about something that has not even been discussed, and then state it as though it were coming out of my mouth. I haven't said a word about the tolerance and innocence of the Middle East. You just made that up and presented it as something I said.

But it IS the way it is getting across, is it not?

A better way would be encouraging democracy in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, all US allies. It's likely that an Islamist paty would come to power in at least one of those states, and then we'd likely see a quick flagging of support for them in the region.

A better way would be encouraging democracy in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, all US allies. It's likely that an Islamist paty would come to power in at least one of those states, and then we'd likely see a quick flagging of support for them in the region.

There was a quick flagging support for the Iranian mullocracy in the region after they took power. They're still in power, and no one has any coherent plans to do anything about it.

Islamist parties rule through fear and intimidation, and once they get power, they keep it. They don't need popular support, they've got petrodollars. If al Qaeda or their Muslim Brotherhood financiers gained real power, they would keep it until someone bigger and stronger got them out.

That thankless and costly job would fall on our shoulders, and all the while we'd have to listen to 'conservatives' like Dyer whining about what horrible warmongers we are. Thanks but no thanks.

Dyer is being a prat, as usual.

Hmmm, I put this particular verbal effort down to overdosing on the 'Who' at one point in time. ---:-)

LOL

What concerns me more than the verbal 'incompetence' which frankly any of us might have if we had to speak out all the time,

Oh, I wasn't really trying to make a big deal out of Bush's lack of verbal skills... I mean, there's no need to shoot fish in a barrel. Besides, verbal skills do mot make a President. They might keep a President popular (see Clinton), but a person could be a good president in spite of their lack of public speaking skills. In the long run, I think history will judge Bush on more than his speeches... and I think it will not be a friendly historical view.

I agree with your assessment of Bush's "hand's off" approach. In fact, I think, if anything, Bush has shown us that the government shouldn't be run by a CEO. Hands Off management usually works pretty well in corporations, but a government is not a corporation and the President is not a CEO.

I don't care if the President merely grunts his orders as long as he knows what orders to grunt,and can SEE the reality on the ground as it is.

I couldn't agree more. I still see no sign that Bush sees reality now, he seems as caught up in the spin as ever. I'd love to trust my President, but not with a blind trust and right now, I don't see how anyone could trust Bush without simply covering their eyes, ears and shutting off their brain.

Good stuff, as always Mike!

The problem with telling the anti-war groups to "wait" (although I agree, we SHOULD wait), is that it doesn't satisfy their need for immediate results....err, make that, it doesn't satisfy their need for the immediate results they WANT.

If something CAN be cherry-picked and twisted into what the anti-war groups want it to be, they will do it. That means that "waiting", will be twisted, by them, into meaning "more dead troops" and "more iraqi civilians killed by our troops" and "more money for this war, and not for hand-outs to illegal immigrants"....etc etc etc.

:-\

The anti-war groups make it up as they go along. Historically, that's the way it's always been with them.

Islamist parties rule through fear and intimidation, and once they get power, they keep it. They don't need popular support, they've got petrodollars. If al Qaeda or their Muslim Brotherhood financiers gained real power, they would keep it until someone bigger and stronger got them out.

So, democracy in the region is a bad idea? Or good? This is getting quite confusing.

..and encouraging an Islamist regime to take over Jordan?? Is Dyer high? This lunatic suggestion totally insults our intelligence.

Sorry, still can't figure it out. Democracy good? Or bad? Jordan was making strides toward more democratic reforms for a while, and now has retreated slightly. Is that a positive thing or not?

Mary,

Islamist parties rule through fear and intimidation, and once they get power, they keep it. They don't need popular support, they've got petrodollars. If al Qaeda or their Muslim Brotherhood financiers gained real power, they would keep it until someone bigger and stronger got them out.

Every nation belongs to the people. The future of every nation belongs to the people. Until the people decide that there will be change, effective change will simply not happen. Not in Iraq, not in Iran, not anywhere. We need only look to northern Iraq for evidence of this.

LisaV,

The problem with telling the anti-war groups to "wait" (although I agree, we SHOULD wait), is that it doesn't satisfy their need for immediate results....err, make that, it doesn't satisfy their need for the immediate results they WANT.

You know, that's a very interesting position to take. Would you agree then to "wait" on Iran? Or do you wish to see "immediate results?"

Interestingly war proponents demanded from liberals back in 2002 that we shouldn't "wait" for a smoking gun. That we needed "immediate results." Now that you guys have F.U.B.A.R.ed this beyond repair, you desire that WE wait. For what exactly? You guys were wrong the first time. Why should we believe you now?

So, democracy in the region is a bad idea? Or good? This is getting quite confusing.

The purpose of war should be to win victory over one's enemy. After the enemy has lost power, a Marshall plan can work.

I never thought that installing a Marshall plan in the Middle East would work, since Islamist groups were gaining power in the area and we had no real plans to deal effectively with them.

So, democracy bad then?

You're being quite unclear on this.

Every nation belongs to the people. The future of every nation belongs to the people. Until the people decide that there will be change, effective change will simply not happen. Not in Iraq, not in Iran, not anywhere. We need only look to northern Iraq for evidence of this.

The Kurds were able to gain power and create a stable society because we helped them do it. If you've read Michael's descriptions of life in Libya, you'd see how authoritarian regimes stay in power without popular support. The 'people' have no say at all in these countries.

Take Iran for example - if 'the people' did manage to overthrow the regime, and if they did try to install a nice, happy, secular democracy, Syria, Hezbollah and every other Islamist paramilitary group in the area would send in the insurgents. In a short time Iran would look just like Iraq.

Just having 'democracy' doesn't guarantee that a nation can defend its borders. Democracy is a good thing, but it's not a weapon of war. Only real weapons, and the will to use them, can defend a nation from a determined, genocidal, supremacist aggressor

I don't care who is in the white house, not even Edwards would want to go down in history as the dumbass that pulled out of a country so a bloodbath can start. Despite all the rhetoric, the actual policy of whoever is elected next year won't be much different than any of the other candidates, it'll just sound different.

Well, it's still unclear, but from what I can gather, Mary is off the "democratic lynchpin of the Middle East" bandwagon. The spread of democracy now seems a lesser consideration in the region.

I, however, still have high hopes for it, and think it an overall resilient form of government. I'm also opposed to all dictatorships in the region, not just the ones unfriendly to the US.

"So, democracy bad then?" --dpu

Liberal(or even quasi-liberal) Democracy --- Good.
'Islamic Theocrat Run' Democracy --- Not so much.

'Democracy' comes in several flavours. Some of which are not only 'unpleasant' but actually actively noxious. Simply because 'most' support an idea does not make that idea worth supporting. And you appear to 'forgetting' that Islamist groupings like the Muslim Brotherhood are seemingly altogether too close to the 'one man, one vote, one time' theory than is comfortable. It is merely 'prudent' for supporters of 'democracy' to wonder if such groups should be allowed to achieve power. As Mary says about Iran. Once in --- never out.

Simply because 'most' support an idea does not make that idea worth supporting. And you appear to 'forgetting' that Islamist groupings like the Muslim Brotherhood are seemingly altogether too close to the 'one man, one vote, one time' theory than is comfortable.

Extremism thrives when there is no peaceful alternative that allows change. If a reasonable constitution is in place, it makes it difficult to overthrow the structures of democracy. Groups like the Muslim Brotherhood would likely find that it is one thing to be an expression of frustration with the local dictator, and quite another to try and get popular votes based on floggings and bans on booze and sex.

If the fear is that they would overthrow a dictatorship and replace it with another, well, that is always possible. It does not require a democracy to occur.

As Mary says about Iran. Once in --- never out.

Surely that statement would only be relevant if the Iranian regime had come to power through a democratic election? And the Iranian regime is always vulnerable to the growing youth demographic, which seems to find politics and religious fundamentalism less relevant than other more worldly pursuits. They are not a generation that was forged under opposition to a Shah. I wouldn't count them out unless we repoliticize them through a bombing campaign.

So why did we invade Iraq?

I recall once, that someone said it was the WMD's, but many people here corrected me last year and said it was actually to bring democracy to the Iraqis. I think I (and dpu and others) quoted Jefferson and others, in an attempt to point out that the Iraqis may neither want, nor be ready to handle democracy. I believe the response was to accuse us of being racist.

Now, suddenly democracy may not always be a good thing?

Is it really that much of a surprise that many citizens are just tuning out the supporters?

I recall once, that someone said it was the WMD's, but many people here corrected me last year and said it was actually to bring democracy to the Iraqis. I think I (and dpu and others) quoted Jefferson and others, in an attempt to point out that the Iraqis may neither want, nor be ready to handle democracy. I believe the response was to accuse us of being racist.

I was actually just laughing about this, and was about to post an almost identical comment.

My position, along with others, was that while democracy is a powerful and flexible system of government, it was difficult to install from without (right-wing response at the time - "what about Japan and Germany", etc). Iraq lacked the preferred precursors to a democracy, like a healthy economy, a large middle class, a liberal tradition of tolerance and compromise for a greater good (ight wing response at the time - "you guys are racist"), and that a suddenly and externally implemented democracy in Iraq would likely result in a religiously fundamentalist and Iran-friendly elected government (R.W.R.A.T.T. - "you guys are racist").

Now that we are in the same position, that democracy is a desirable system of government in the Middle East, but needs to be implemented strategically and through reform, we're told by the same people that democracy is undesirable.

Odd, and quite funny.

Dan,

Yes...we should wait on Iran. Why? Glad you asked.

Because the anti-war groups have twisted what once was common sense regarding protecting one's nation and security. Now, because of their hold on the who/what/when/where/why regarding our own defense, we MUST wait until nearly the last possible second to go to war. Perhaps even wait until blood has been shed.

So yes...we must wait....because THAT is the place the anti-war zealots have backed us into.
My only question is...are THEY going to be the first to volunteer to lose that blood that must be spilled, so that we can then justify going to war? I'm not suggesting that's something I want...merely stating that the anti-war groups seem to believe that THEY will not be the ones on the losing end of things, if we wait one moment too long, and allow American blood to be spilled. They forget that all kinds of people died on 9/11, and the jihadi thugs didn't first ask "are you a republican or a democrat?".

So...when I say "yes, we must wait"...its ONLY because we now HAVE TO. Thanks to the anti-war groups.

I'm also fully prepared for the backlash of "why didn't we go in sooner"? from the same crowds, if/when we ARE hit again, all because we DIDN'T act fast enough.

No no....This is THEIR anti-war bed they've made, so I don't want to hear any complaints about the sheets when they crap them after the next attack comes.

Sometimes...that is the only way to teach the willfully ignorant a lesson. They will not "get it" until then.

Gene:

You made some good points, i.e., "alternatives? or least feel bad."

"defenestrate myself" - typo? invented word?
Had to look it up: funny!!
"Throw myself out a window" - wonder where that word came from? Anyway, learned a new one today.

Tom in South Texas

LisaV,

You have got to be kidding, right?

You don't seriously believe that load of baloney you just dumped into a comment, do you? Our footing in Iran is all because of the anti-war people... none of the need to wait has resulted from the mess in Iraq, the fact that we're gonna be out of soldiers within the year or the fact that we've lost the respect of most, but not all other nations on the planet?

Further, 9/11 did kill all sorts of people. However, the leader of the group responsible is not in Iran. He's not in Iraq. So why bring it up? Oh I get it... you're gonna tie 9/11 to Iran since that tactic worked so well with Iraq, right?

We won't be invading Iran, because the American people got led into a mess with misinformation, bad planning, bizarre rationalizations and the people that led us there still haven't realized their mistakes. What do you expect people to do, blindly follow incompetent leaders?

Now, suddenly democracy may not always be a good thing?

I've always said that we couldn't install a Marshall plan until we got rid of the fascist groups in the area. I've been saying that since 2004.

It wasn't a case of the Iraqis (or the Germans) not being able to 'handle' democracy, it was just a question of doing things in the right order. You don't paint over rotten wood and expect it to stick. You don't remove a wasps nest until the wasps are dormant.

I've also been saying that we invaded Iraq following the Carter Doctrine, which stated that we will take military action to preserve 'stability' in the area. According to Bob Woodward and Richard Clarke, that still is true:

Bob Woodward of the Washington Post has written one of the most thorough journalistic accounts of the Iraq War. He describes a "top secret" Bush administration memo entitled "Iraq: Goals, Objectives and Strategy," which specifically states that one "key goal" was "to minimize disruption in international oil markets." Woodward details a conversation between Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to Washington, and President Bush in which Bandar seeks to get Bush to finish off the historic step begun by his father in 1991, by getting rid of Saddam. A letter from Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah was delivered at the same meeting with the same request.

Moreover, Richard A. Clarke, a subsequent Bush administration critic who was exposed to internal White House thinking about the Iraq War until March 2003, has concluded that most of the rationales for the decision to go to war reflected "a concern with the long-term stability of the House of Saud."

We can prattle about democracy all we want, it won't change the direction of American foreign policy. Whether there's a republican or a democrat in office, the only thing that changes is how the policy is sold to the public.

Ratatosk,

If one cannot justify the defense of their nation on taking the battle TO their enemies (that have already attacked several times in the past decade), no matter where they are...then exactly WHAT should we use to justify our defense?

You don't understand our enemy...that much is plain. A jihadi is a jihadi. No matter where they live. Now, keep in mind, I did NOT say a "muslim is a muslim". I am very aware that not all muslims are terrorists. However, jihadi islam is what motivates jihadis....nothing else. YOUR problem is that you don't understand that. Do your own research, and you'll find that out.

To jihadis, blowing themselves up and taking 50 odd "infidels" with them, is like a Christian praying in Church on Sunday. It is a form of worship for them. It is how they prove to allah that they love him.

The sad part is...the folks caught in the middle are those who we call "moderate muslims", or just plain ol' musilms who do not practice violent jihad. In truth, the islamic faith needs a "Martin Luther". It must reform, and split from within. If it doesn't, alot of innocent people are going to be marked "jihadi", when we all know that isn't the case.

Iran WILL use their weapons...eventually.
If you're comfortable with waiting, that means you either don't believe ANY war is justified, or you're not in israel. (And keep in mind...nuclear materials don't always come in the form of a missle...they can easily be transported in a suit case, and find themselves on our shores. If you think al-queda and the Iranian Revolutionary Guardsmen wouldn't work together to destroy "the great satan", then you willfully ignore the reality of the situation. Our enemy LOVES naive people.)

We can prattle about democracy all we want,...

Or prattle about Saudi machinations, or prattle about terrorist boogymen, or prattle about bombing Iran. That is what we do here on the bloggosphere, isn't it? Prattle?

DPU,

Patrick, I get really annoyed when people imagine what I think about something that has not even been discussed, and then state it as though it were coming out of my mouth. I haven't said a word about the tolerance and innocence of the Middle East. You just made that up and presented it as something I said.

If all the blame for conditions in the Middle East rests squarely on the shoulders of post-9/11 conservatism, the only explanation is that the area around the original Garden of Eden was until very recently exactly the Garden of Eden in fact. Nothing is cut and dried in the Middle East, except apricots and figs. You made an asinine over-generalization assigning blame and I called you on it. If I did so in a way that irritates you, perhaps you won't do so in the future.

Success has a thousand fathers and defeat is an orphan. Except that the disaster of the Middle East really has a lot of factors involved in its manifold failures. It does not serve your views to express them in such an absolutist manner. You don't have the standing to make such generalizations and the ones you are making do not stand up to scrutiny, besides.

Or prattle about Saudi machinations, or prattle about terrorist boogymen, or prattle about bombing Iran. That is what we do here on the bloggosphere, isn't it? Prattle?

True. But if we all, simultaneously prattled about the crappy, crumbling foundation that our foreign policies are based on, prattling might accomplish something.

Patrick,

Blame isn't really important now that Cheney and the neocons are champing at the bit to bomb Iran. It would be unquestionable the most fool hardy and evil undertaking in US history.

You made an asinine over-generalization assigning blame and I called you on it. If I did so in a way that irritates you, perhaps you won't do so in the future.

Bullshit. You seem unable to actually argue with what I have stated, so you make shit up. It's intellectually dishonest and lazy, doubly so when you rationalize it as teaching me a lesson. All it's really doing is encouraging me to mentally classify you as an idiot who is unable to make arguments stand on their own merit.

It's the equivalent of me stating that your position is that current US foreign policy is perfect in every regard, and that Bush is a god-like figure unable to do wrong. I doubt that is your position, but it would be easy to make the same sweeping generalizations that you just did.

If this is the nature of debate that you are comfortable with, I'd be happy to oblige.

Glasnost:

You wrote: "For any serious antiwar advocate, it's time to stop blogging and get into the streets."

If that is your sincere belief, then get your fat butt off the couch and into the streets. I doubt that too many will be joining you, unless the draft is reinstated. But hey, best of luck with your little rebellion.

But if we all, simultaneously prattled about the crappy, crumbling foundation that our foreign policies are based on, prattling might accomplish something.

And we all might ride unicorns too. Seriously, do you think that the greater flow of opinion that the internet provides would result in everyone thinking the same way?

We aren't about to prattle in unison ever, barring North Korean-style oversight of the web.

And now I'm stuck with the phrase "prattlesphere" in my head.

"We aren't about to prattle in unison ever..."--- dpu

Oh I don't know.

Vee haf vays of making you prattle. In unison also, maybe. --- :-)

And we all might ride unicorns too. Seriously, do you think that the greater flow of opinion that the internet provides would result in everyone thinking the same way?

As far as I can tell, everyone is unhappy about our foreign policy. Focusing on the core problems would probably be more useful than having the same old left vs. right arguments, but what do I know.

Blame isn't really important now that Cheney and the neocons are champing at the bit to bomb Iran. It would be unquestionable the most fool hardy and evil undertaking in US history.

That will not stand, sir. What about Operation Northwoods, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, and Operation Menu?

Mary has a point. Any things better than watch the MSM drone on with neocon talking points. There will be little difference this time around. Knowledge and 'prattling" are helpful.

I haven't been following the comments on this site for a while, but it's discussions like this one that always make me wait with baited breath for someone to quote Jack Nicholson from A Few Good Men as some kind of justification for why we had to go into Iraq and why we have to stay there.

Has is happened already and I missed it?

As far as I can tell, everyone is unhappy about our foreign policy. Focusing on the core problems would probably be more useful than having the same old left vs. right arguments, but what do I know.

The arguments we're having are not actually left vs. right, although they've become handy labels for the opposing arguments. There are plenty of conservatives who opposed invasion and lots of liberals and leftists who supported it.

But yes, I see your point.

At this time, however, there isn't a lot remaining to discuss. I think there is a certain amount of inevitability that is now in play, and I'm not sure what foreign policy arguments may be made that will greatly change the outcome one way or another.

Yearly budget for US military is around $630 billion (about 5% of GNP)

Yearly budget for US Entitlement Programs (ie Social Security, Medicaid, funding puppety art etc, ad nauseum) is $1 trillion, 360 billion (around 15% of GNP)

It is creepy, actually nasty to hear how those who receive so much are always bitching that they are not getting enough goodies.

Disgusting, vile and nasty is the 'gime' socialist mindset. It is sick at how so many Americans are really selfish bastards.

Patrick,

Why drag the whole Middle East into the question of whether we should stay in Iraq or not?

We are occupying Iraq.

Anything that happens there is our responsibility.

If we don't want the responsibility...we should leave.

syn,
don't knock puppetry, bush wouldn't know how to act.

e says:

"We are occupying Iraq.

Anything that happens there is our responsibility.

If we don't want the responsibility...we should leave."

And yet, if we do leave, it will be argued (possibly by you) that whatever bad happens there will still be our fault. At least if we stay we have a chance to actually influence events.

If one cannot justify the defense of their nation on taking the battle TO their enemies (that have already attacked several times in the past decade), no matter where they are...then exactly WHAT should we use to justify our defense?

I have not in this forum, nor have I ever said anything of the sort. I fully supported going after our enemies that attacked us. I stood against a lot of my friends with my position on Afganistan in 2001. I was not happy with the invasion of Iraq, because I thought we should be focused on the Muslim extremists, something that Saddam (for all of his horrible faults) was not.

You don't understand our enemy...that much is plain. A jihadi is a jihadi. No matter where they live. Now, keep in mind, I did NOT say a "muslim is a muslim". I am very aware that not all muslims are terrorists. However, jihadi islam is what motivates jihadis....nothing else. YOUR problem is that you don't understand that. Do your own research, and you'll find that out.

I haven't posted on here much lately, so I'll let this pass as you not knowing me.

Iran WILL use their weapons...eventually.
If you're comfortable with waiting, that means you either don't believe ANY war is justified, or you're not in israel. (And keep in mind...nuclear materials don't always come in the form of a missle...they can easily be transported in a suit case, and find themselves on our shores. If you think al-queda and the Iranian Revolutionary Guardsmen wouldn't work together to destroy "the great satan", then you willfully ignore the reality of the situation. Our enemy LOVES naive people.)

You truly have low reading comprehension skills if you interpreted my posts to somehow support the nonsense you just wrote.

Iran is our enemy, no doubt. Iran is likely building a nuclear stockpile. Iran poses a huge potential threat to the region and our interests there. However, because of 6 years of incompetence, misdirection, lies (intentional or not), mistakes, bad ideas and flawed implementations... we aren't in any position to attack Iran. The American people won't support it and that, more than any PATRIOT act, is probably the single most dangerous thing that Bush's presidency has caused.

What you don't seem willing to admit is that you side fucked up and now your side gets to hold the bag on Iran. If we hadn't invaded Iraq, there wouldn't be an Anti-War crowd. If we'd had a sane plan when we invaded Iraq, the anti-war movement would be small and powerless. If we had an President that could honestly admit mistakes and be willing to listen to multiple points of view, then maybe more than 30% of the population would trust him.

I'm with you on the danger Iran poses. I think your whacked out on the reasons we can't attack them.

The thing about our sudden need to bomb Iran that I don't get is why we just don't try to have better diplomatic relations with Iran. The pressure worked on Saddam and could work even better on Iran. The more moderate Iranian president before Ahmadinejad wanted talks with us too and Cheney nixed it. The fact is, every time Cheney and Bush talk about bombing Iran the worlds oil prices go sky high and Ahmad. get million of extra dollars and public approval.

DPU,

Uh, doug? The ME is currently an inferno due to the incompetent and ham-fisted foreign policy thrashings of the conservative crowd. It's pretty ballsy to indicate that liberals (or "progressives", the new mot du jour) are bad at it.

This is an asinine overstatement assigning blame. You need to back down from this. You cannot sustain this statement under scrutiny. Your position does not explain why the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, which was a much bloodier debacle by any conceivable measure, occurred. This is the relevant yardstick for butchery in the Middle East, and it makes the current unpleasantness look like heaven by comparison.

People in the Middle East are perfectly willing and capable of harming each other viciously without US interference or involvement. Assigning blame to the conservatives over difficulties in the Middle East is like blaming the weather on weatherman, emotionally satisfying and intellectually vacuous.

Ratatosk,

Do you think then we should just go for the Nuke sites, some of which I don't think we know where they are and are 75 feet below ground or, as rummer has it, try to destroy the whole nation and cause an uprising, (an incredible stupid idea).

Assigning blame to the conservatives over difficulties in the Middle East is like blaming the weather on weatherman, emotionally satisfying and intellectually vacuous.

In other words, the Bush administration is totally competent, has made no mistakes, or at least no mistakes with any negative outcome in the Middle East of any note, and the current situation would have come about regardless of the Bush administrations foreign policy exercises.

Good to hear.

"And yet, if we do leave, it will be argued (possibly by you) that whatever bad happens there will still be our fault. At least if we stay we have a chance to actually influence events."

Marty,

We can always bribe Maliki to ask us to get our troops out if you're worried about the "blame."

Your position does not explain why the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, which was a much bloodier debacle by any conceivable measure, occurred.

What helped make it so bloody was our giving arms to both sides, and our meddling in both countries politics.

Russ,

Do you think then we should just go for the Nuke sites, some of which I don't think we know where they are and are 75 feet below ground or, as rummer has it, try to destroy the whole nation and cause an uprising, (an incredible stupid idea).

I think we should step back and try to get out of this with at least a shred of dignity. No scenario in Iran is workable at this point, our invasion of Iraq has placed us in a completely indefensible position in the region. If Iraq had never happened, maybe things would be different and we could sanction or cut off Iran, maybe get assistance from the surrounding nations to ratchet up the pressure, or in a worst case scenario... military action. However, at this point we have none of those options available to us.

Ratatosk-

You mention friends who were opposed into going into Afghanistan. Are they still opposed? Or has Afghanistan become the "good war" while Iraq is the "bad war."

My point is that many of these people form the nucleus of the anti-war efforts and would have directed their messaging and energy toward getting us out of Afghanistan if we did not invade Iraq.

Ratatosk,

Why don't we have those "options"? We are the world power. When the Ayatollah sent waves on young men to die in the Iraq war, he found it necessary to tell the women in Iran to populate and they did. Consequently, you have a very large and young, pop loving, generation of Iranians who dread seeing what happened to Iraq with sanctions.

I've got to go pick up my kids from school. Thanks for the debate.

Consequently, you have a very large and young, pop loving, generation of Iranians who dread seeing what happened to Iraq with sanctions.

Sanctions without the support of China and Russia are meaningless, and unlikely to occur.

MartyH,

You mention friends who were opposed into going into Afghanistan. Are they still opposed? Or has Afghanistan become the "good war" while Iraq is the "bad war."

Eh, most of them think all war is bad and everything can be solved through diplomacy. I think all war is unfortunate and should be a last resort... but sometimes its necessary. In Afghanistan, the Taliban provided sanctuary to OBL. They refused to turn him over and I think military action was justified. I think we've done a pretty bad job there since 2003, but I still think invading was the right thing to do.

Russ,

Why don't we have those "options"? We are the world power.

I suppose that, if Bush were to simply call out the military to attack... then that option would exist. However, if he goes to Congress (like some old documents like the constitution claim he should) then he won't get backing. He won't get backing from Congress, because most of the country doesn't like him or Congress and they don't have the stomach for more war (not until another attack I daresay). The power of this World Power lies with the people. Thus, I say those options are closed to us, because the people won't support it. Further, I doubt there are any other nations (except maybe Poland and now possibly France) that would support any action we would take against Iran.

DPU:

You wrote:"Extremism thrives when there is no peaceful alternative that allows change. If a reasonable constitution is in place, it makes it difficult to overthrow the structures of democracy."

Not necesarily so. Hitler's rise to power is a perfect case in point. You will undoubtedly recall that Hitler was appointed Chancellor, not elected to the post. Weimar Germany had a reasonable democratic constitution which Hilter and his Nazi brown shirt thugs subverted and destroyed largely through violence and intimidation. Aside from reliance on violence, the Nazis took advantage of the fractious nature of Weimar politics and the political discontent generated by the weak economy to rise to and consolidate their power.

The current status of Hezbollah in Lebanon is another case in point. It is a militant group that is attempting to use a combination of the following tactics to subvert a flawed democratic state: political patronage, threats, intimidation, and militia action. It is not a lack of political flexibility in the Lebanese system that fuels Hezbollah, but rather the toxic mix of long held political, social and economic greivances many Shia harbor against Sunni or Chritian elites combined with the military strength that Iranian money and weapons provide. I strongly suspect that, once in power, Hezbollah will tolerate little, if any, political dissent. Given the grudges many Shia still hold, a triumphant Hezbollah would have great difficulty resisting the post-revolution Iranian example of the viciously persecuting regime opponents (show trials resulting in thousands of executions).

According to Linz and Stepan, the transition from the type of totalitarian/sultanic state (similar to that found in Iraq) to a stable democratic state is the most difficult to accomplish without a determined foreign commitment. The link to a summary of their book, Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe, can be found at http://www.beyondintractability.org/booksummary/10368/ .

I too favor democratic reform in both hostile and allied middle eastern states, but pretending that such reforms do not present substantial short term risks of further destabilizing the region is fool hardy. As the United States has little political credibility with the majorities in most midddle eastern countries, it will be forced to act in a cautious manner in applying pressure to allied regimes to bring about any kind of political reform.

Lastly, I do love the term "prattlesphere." It captures the essence of this hobby for us amateurs. Of course, the kind of on-the-scene war zone reporting MJT does is on a very different plane.

Ratatosk-

My point is that these people would focus on how "horribly" Afghanistan is going, regardless of the actual situation on the ground. How casualties are too high, our international standing is gone, Bush lied us into war, too few troops on the ground, history of sectarian violence, Aghanistan should be partitioned into seven countries, blah, blah blah blah...

If we had not gone into Iraq, the stage would be different (Aghanistan instead of Iraq), but the anti-war play would still be the same.

Let's not forget that Operation Enduring Freedom covers more than just Afghanistan, marty.

It's also covers, among other countries, Somalia, which is actually going worse than Iraq and Afghanistan (if that's possible).

Hitler's rise to power is a perfect case in point.

Perfect? Germany was in a severe financial crisis, largely due to the crippling war reparations. The nation was humiliated by the armistice condition, and politics was fragmented by numerous parties of a variety of extreme political positions. You mention this in your comment, so I'm not sure why you would consider this a perfect example.

I strongly suspect that, once in power, Hezbollah will tolerate little, if any, political dissent.

Again, this isn't even an example of a contrary argument. From what I understand, Hezbollah has not strayed outside the Lebanese constitution yet. Should they take power, there are more than a few minority opinions that could upset the apple cart, so they would have to tread lightly to maintain power. If the attempted something outside their constitutional bounds, there would likely be strife in the streets.

Depending an what happens, it may be an example of what I was talking about. Democracies have a moderating influence.

As the United States has little political credibility with the majorities in most midddle eastern countries, it will be forced to act in a cautious manner in applying pressure to allied regimes to bring about any kind of political reform.

Considering that the US invaded one country supposedly to influence democratic reform, and the current spin on a proposed Iranian attack is to allow democratic revolution there, forgive me for jaw-dropping amazement at the suggestion that the US needs to do this cautiously.

DPU:

Your statement was it was inflexible governments which lead to extremism. This is an "extreme" oversimplification. The Weimar republic had a quite flexible, democratic governmental system with ample mechanisms for political change short of violence. It was the weakness of the state, along with the political unrest and polarization which you described which allowed the Nazi's to use violence and intimidation to gain control. The political radicalism was largely a reaction to the dire economic conditions in Germany.

As to political reform in the middle east, cautiously, if the U.S. hopes to have any chance of success in encouraging political reforms in the region in the mid to long term.

As to Iran, regime change via military conquest is out of the question, unless the draft is reinstated in the U.S., since current troop levels can't be maintained for an extended period per Petraeus.

Early this year, Hezbollah enforced a "strike" that was extra-constitutional by any reasonable definition of that term. It shut down the entire country with milita patroled road blocks and flaming tires. Do you deem such behavior to be within the bounds of the rule of law or legitimate political protest? It was only after Sunni groups, enraged by Hezbollah's attempt at a soft coup, took to the streets and confronted Hezbollah in force that Nasrallah backed down.

As to other groups balancing Hezbollahs' theocratic political instincts, this same argument was made in favor of the Iranian revolution by its western fans (particularly those among the leftist French intellgensia). However, once in power, the mullahs rapidly proceeded to consolidate power and then to eliminate thousands of secularist politicians who had been their allies against the Shah.

In time of political transition and/or chaos, small well armed and disciplined groups have often gained control of the levers of state power. When their political philosophy includes strong totalitarian sentiments, they have frequently turned violently upon their former allies as soon as they have consolidated power.

Your statement was it was inflexible governments which lead to extremism. This is an "extreme" oversimplification.

No, I said that extremism thrives when there is no peaceful alternative that allows change. But I take your point, and yes, this is a simplification. This is the prattlesphere, simplifications are need to communicate.

Early this year, Hezbollah enforced a "strike" that was extra-constitutional by any reasonable definition of that term.

To my recollection, there was nothing unconstitutional about that strike

Do you deem such behavior to be within the bounds of the rule of law or legitimate political protest?

Yup. And if Hezbollah takes power and acts in an innapproriate manner, I hope the opposition will take to the streets in the same manner. Strikes and protests of this sort have a long tradition in most democratic nations.

However, once in power, the mullahs rapidly proceeded to consolidate power and then to eliminate thousands of secularist politicians who had been their allies against the Shah.

Again, as the Iranian regime did not come to power through a legal or democratic process, I'm not sure what the point is in bringing them up. I said earlier that a constitution is required to avoid any group illegally taking power. I would amend that to a constitution and a sizable proportion of the society ready to take to the streets to defend that constitution.

dpg,

I think Russia and China would agree to sanctions more redily than you think. ( This is a late response, I know.)

On October 6, 2006 Britain, France, Germany, Russia, the U.S, and China met in London and agreed to discuss sanctions against Iran. U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns said, “The decision has been made—we’ll go for sanctions; the question is what the extent of the sanctions will be.” The terms of the sanctions will likely be discussed next week, but Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told CNN that she expected the sanctions to be economic—and she stated that she was “quite, quite certain” that the UN would approve them.

I think Russia and China would agree to sanctions more redily than you think.

The sanctions that you speak of were pretty mild (bans on technology that would contribute to their nuclear program), and were an attempt to appease the US by Russia and China in order to avoid a military confrontation. I doubt very much that there will many more attempts with any meat to them, particularly if the actions taken by the US are military in nature.

dpu,

Thanks for your response. That really isn't good news.

dpu,

I did a little research and found an article you may not be aware of. It suggest other ways to deal with the nuke threat than sanctions.

Nor should Washington rely exclusively on UN sanctions, which might not work. Instead, the U.S. government must dig into its diplomatic toolbox and offer -- in conjunction with China, Russia, and the EU-3 (France, Germany, and the United Kingdom) -- contingent security guarantees to Tehran.

http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/world/20060901faessay_v85n5_sagan.html

Russ,

Iran already has observer status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_cooperation

Any guarantees of Iran's securiy would most likely come through the SCO.

Europe and America would become rather irrelevant in Asia if that happened.

Patrick's right that the ME was not a bundle of joy prior to 2003 and that our pre-911 policies were not working well. I think he's caught DPU exaggerating in that quote. From someone who usually agrees with DPU.

Not that the fact that the ME was not a bundle of joy prior to 2003 doesn't me we can't have made it worse. I think the case for what's happened in the region is ambiguous, with positives and negatives. The only thing I feel I know the war was bad for was the Iraqis and the Americans.

That's what usually happens in modern wars - the participants all lose power relative to the non-participants.

Good, short piece.

I see these Iraqi question(s) being passed on to the next administration in DC in 2008.

My point is that these people would focus on how "horribly" Afghanistan is going, regardless of the actual situation on the ground. How casualties are too high, our international standing is gone, Bush lied us into war, too few troops on the ground, history of sectarian violence, Aghanistan should be partitioned into seven countries, blah, blah blah blah...

If we had not gone into Iraq, the stage would be different (Aghanistan instead of Iraq), but the anti-war play would still be the same.

Err, are you from the same country I am? From 2001 to 2003 I recall seeing exactly one peace rally with a handful of people. Most of my friends didn't like the war, but didn't think it was any more or less wrong than any other war. Then we invaded a sovereign nation that had not attacked us (except in retaliation for attacking them). Using flimsy reasons, bad planning and civil leadership that apparently had no clue as to the difference between their red ivory towers and reality. Since 2003 anti-war protests have grown and now my friends do go to them, because the see this war as illegal and the leadership as incompetent.

If we would have stayed on task, Bush could have defended himself. We did not stay on task, we implemented a rather silly plan that has had terrible results. Don't fool yourself into thinking that the "anti-war crowd" is some static set of people who just protest any war.

If we had not gone into Iraq, the stage would be different (Aghanistan instead of Iraq), but the anti-war play would still be the same.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that the "anti-war crowd" is some static set of people who just protest any war.---tosk

Ummm, I think that between point 'A' and point 'B' lies a vast area of probabilities.

It could be argued that the 'support' for Afghanistan was a function of 'timing' and 'scale' not at all of 'conviction'. After 9-11 the 'usual suspects' kept their heads well down for quite obvious reasons, but as time elapsed and memories have faded they have become more obstreperous as is their wont. And let's be honest here --- Afghanistan is SMALL SCALE, and you are comparing a small apple to a very large orange and attributing motivations on the basis of that comparison. It simply does not 'pay' to whine about Afghanistan.

It the 'left' in the US is even vaguely close to similar to the 'left' here in Canada, they DO NOT support the effort in Afghanistan except in some feel-good impractical sort of way. A 'why fight' feel-good impractical kind of way. Afghanistan might merely make a 'convenient' alternative to the Bush War in Iraq in the minds of US 'liberals'. It is 'good'(if at all) only because it is NOT Iraq. In Canada, according to those same types, it is merely Bush's War. Period. Therefore ipso facto it cannot be 'good'.

I surely can't speak for your friends as after-all they are your friends, but I find this picture of bucolic, well-intentioned but betrayed 'supporters' of THE 'legitimate' War, to be hard to digest.

But maybe its just the state of my teeth.

dougf,

I surely can't speak for your friends as after-all they are your friends, but I find this picture of bucolic, well-intentioned but betrayed 'supporters' of THE 'legitimate' War, to be hard to digest.

Well, I would never call them supporters of any war. They weren't protesting it, mostly because they didn't feel strongly against it... Iraq they feel strongly against.

As for betrayed, I think that may fit my feelings rather than theirs. I thought Bush was making a good decision to go after OBL in Afghanistan. I thought taking out OBL this time around might make the fuckers think twice next time. I was, for once, happy we had a Texan in the White House. Sadly, that didn't last long. I think I almost hit that point where a young liberal becomes and old conservative... but this experience reminded me strongly that both sides are equally full of incompetent fools.

So in a sense, I'm kind of glad that Bush invaded Iraq, I might have joined the Republicans if he had continued to act like a leader... ICK! ;-)

So in a sense, I'm kind of glad that Bush invaded Iraq, I might have joined the Republicans if he had continued to act like a leader... ICK! ;-)--tosk

Well to every cloud a silver lining I suppose -- :-)

ps --" Well, I would never call them supporters of any war".

I accept this as 100 digestible, poor teeth or no. Which I think more or less 'confirms' the original point that you were arguing against in this thread. It is ONLY the scale of Afghanistan that prevents it from being the subject of 'anti-war' activity. 'Any war' is pretty much self-explanatory, is it not ?

pps-- liberal / conservative --- who cares. I devide people into thinking / not-so-much. Thinking = good.
Not-so-much = not so much.

Take care,

I did a little research and found an article you may not be aware of. It suggest other ways to deal with the nuke threat than sanctions.

Russ, I have hopes that diplomacy would be the first tool out of the box on this one. But from the beginning of this crisis, it has appeared both that Iran would like to flaunt the fact that the US military is tied down in Iraq, and that Bush is not interested in diplomacy with a nation that he has labeled part of the axis of evil.

I wish the grownups would yank the choke chain on both parties.

Patrick's right that the ME was not a bundle of joy prior to 2003 and that our pre-911 policies were not working well. I think he's caught DPU exaggerating in that quote. From someone who usually agrees with DPU.

If my kitchen catches on fire, and a firefighter messes up so badly that my whole house and both neighboring houses also catch fire, surely it is not an exaggeration to state that the conflagration is the fault of the firefighter? Or is it okay to shrug and say "Well, it's not his fault, the kitchen was already on fire"?

Yes, the Middle East has been a tinderbox for years, which is why it needs to be handled very carefully. Are we going to argue that Bush's policies have had no hand in the current mess?

If my kitchen catches on fire, and a firefighter messes up so badly that my whole house and both neighboring houses also catch fire, surely it is not an exaggeration to state that the conflagration is the fault of the firefighter?--dpu

Oh I dare say that it is indeed a bit of a stretch, my good man. Lawyers to the contrary. The fire supposes the need for a fireman but you posit the existence of a 'competetent' fireman as an ideal whereas in fact the truer alternative would be no fireman at all.

I think this anology and indeed the situation it is intended to describe, speaks more to time-frame than it does to results. The most you can allege is that the 'wrong' action has 'accerlerated' the conflagration,already in process, not that it would not have at some later point consumed the 'collateral damage' anyway.

Turning over the rocks does not magically change the character of what was lurking underneath. It merely exposes that character for all to see. In a DIFFERENT time frame.

Bush can rightly be blamed for not having a plan other than eeek to deal with the rock creatures he exposed. He can't be blamed for them being there. Sooner or later they were going to push up the rock themselves and come out to play.

Bush has enough to answer for without adding more. An effort by the by which serves mainly to obscure the real existential problem.

I don't understand this continual myopia regarding diplomacy with Iran.

We have been using diplomacy with the Iranians for nearly thirty years!

The continual pattern from them is to make trivial, non-durable concessions to get us off their backs, and meanwhile to proceed with their larger program in whichever manner is expedient.

This pattern is not exclusive to Muslims, though the tradition of the hudna does seem well-established. FARC in Columbia and the Maoists in China did the exact same thing. You can find the theoretical underpinnings for it in Mao's On Guerrilla Warfare.

If the opposing party fundamentally intends on conflict, then diplomacy is ineffective. Indeed, it becomes a weapon in the hands of the enemy.

The Iranians have not convinced me in any manner that their intentions are benign.

I would demand at minimum the following from them before I were to briefly consider trusting them:

Call Hizballah to heel.

Build a civilian nuclear plant that can actually use the uranium that they are enriching! (They have none. The only use to which they can now put their uranium is military, full stop.)

Make peaceful overtures to Israel. (Their inability to even pretend to do so, as has Saudi Arabia, is damning.)

These poor Democrats... They're stuck between their own Scylla and Charybdis. On one hand, the American left finds it difficult as Americans to hope for failure in Iraq. No one who claims a shred of patriotism could ever sanely pray for U.S. defeat at the hands of a ragtag bunch of islamic extremists, whose stated goal is the annihilation of all things Western and all things American. Doing so is painful. It is so painful, they have already declared the counterinsurgency a failure:

"Now I believe myself that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada). "Johnson did not want a war loss on his watch, so he surged in Vietnam. After the surge was over, we added 34,000 to the 24,000 who died in Vietnam."

Such statements spare their owners the pain of having to hope for defeat. But hope for defeat they do. Why?

Because hoping for a successful outcome in Iraq is a political anathema to them. To do so is to pray for the political success of the much hated George W. Bush and much more hated Dick Cheney, whom they allege is the mastermind. When America succeeds in Iraq, Bush will leave office as the President who brought democracy to both Iraq and Afganistan, giving the middle east two bastions of freedom for the first time in history of the region. It results in two peaceful, stable and productive allies of the United States. For Iraq, it would place a large chunk of the world's proven oil reserves in the hands of a friendly nation and represent a regional influence with which to check the radical islamists in Iran. Those would be historically significant developments for the United States and southwestern Asia. And, they would provide a formidable legacy for Mr. Bush.

But such developments would also cause serious damage to the Democrats' hope to regain the White House in 2008 and add to slender majorities in the US House and Senate. That is the overarching goal of the left's opposition to the war in Iraq. If they can damage Bush politically, they will damage the Republican Party candidates who hope to succeed him. Their best opportunity to damage Bush is to declare defeat in Iraq, bring the troops home in a hot retreat, and lay the blame for the ensuing chaos on Bush. Make no mistake about it--if we were to pull out of Iraq at any time in the span advocated by the defeatists, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis will perish and radical islamists will swoop in like vultures and live on the carcasses.

Would the left would willingly sacrifice those lives and risk giving Al Qaeda a failed state to move into? Would they risk the safety of our allies and our citizens just to win an election? It looks like it, doesn't it?

Shame on them. Shame on them all.

Make peaceful overtures to Israel. (Their inability to even pretend to do so, as has Saudi Arabia, is damning.)

When we're discussing the influence of diplomacy and our long-standing foreign policies, I have to ask - we know that these 'peaceful overtures', peace processes, "recongizing Israel", etc. are never followed by a reduction in terrorism or by any genuine steps towards peace.As long as w