This reminds me of an experience I had years ago in Gaza. I was in the process of purchasing some freshly baked pita and was a little surprised to look up and see a black-and-white picture of Saddam Hussein with the words “the brave leader” under the picture in Arabic. It wasn’t the best likeness so I asked someone to confirm it was in fact supposed to be Saddam. The man became rather defiant and said something about how Saddam was great and how someday he (Saddam Hussein) would show up “you Americans.”

I just shrugged and didn’t say much, but I did think to myself “you are SO wrong.”

For some bizarre inexplicable perverted reason, to some people in the Middle East, this evil tyrant actually had appeal. But I think it’s a great thing that he’s dead and I hope his death puts shakes into every tyrannical government in the region.

danithew,

For some bizarre inexplicable perverted reason, to some people in the Middle East, this evil tyrant actually had appeal.

I remind you to read Sun Tzu. Oh how little Americans know about their “enemy.”

But I think it’s a great thing that he’s dead and I hope his death puts shakes into every tyrannical government in the region.

again, and I hope for world peace, but alas the world plays a different game.

As a matter of fact, the other “tyrannical governments” in the region are breathing a sigh of relief at having Saddam gone. One less threat on their positions of power.

It doesn’t matter who insisted on the death penalty, Anne. The death penalty is not the point here. Making an example of Saddam is. That’s DKL’s point. If he were exiled on Elba and humiliated to the rest of the world, the form of punishment is not the issue.

I was watching the Electrical Light Parade in Disneyland with my 3 year-old tonight when I received an email from my wife informing me of the execution. Funny times! I congratulated my brother who was with me at the parade. He fought in the battle of Baghdad in 2003 as a Marine infantryman.

My hope is that Saddam serves as an example, and that the people of Iraq will be preserved in righteousness and in holiness of heart, that they will kill all those combined for insurrection and against peace in Iraq, even as they have killed Saddam tonight

And my hope is that the government of Iraq will take responsibility for their own country and destiny so that our brave young servicemen and woman can stop spilling their blood for this ill conceived debacle of nation building.

No doubt that Saddam was not a nice guy. I don’t see how his death will make one whit of difference in Iraq’s future. Sure, it may make the cowboy from Crawford feel a bit more macho–but I don’t see how it makes me safer here on California’s Central Coast. Nor, do I see how it does anything positive for anyone else.

Curtis, I’ll recommend to you, as I did Dan, Kirkpatrick’s essays on the matter. Once Saddam moved from fighting over boundary dispute with his neighbor and putting down internal rebellions to invading and threatening entire countries with his military and fueling international instability, he entered an entirely different realm. Cops require snitches who operate outside the boundaries of the law in order to catch the bigger fish. But once that snitch becomes a kingpin, he moves from being an informant to being a target.

Saddam started out as a dime-a-dozen despot with a knack for brutality who was willing to help us further secularism in the face of religious fanaticism in the Middle east. Once he decided to act on international ambitions he became our enemy and an enemy to world peace and stability. Hind-sight is 20/20. If we’d have known that he going to be interested in more than (say) Somoza or Chang Ka-Check or Pinochet, then we certainly wouldn’t have backed him. But there was no way to have known that at the time, and there’s nothing to apologize for. I mean, it’s not like we gave him a pass on Kuwait just because he’d been our friend for so long. Indeed, It’s to our credit that Rumsfeld, after having been there to shake hands on a deal with him in the 80s, was willing to act in our nations best interests.

Instead, Bush is constantly harangued for making special exceptions for his international political friends (on the one hand), and then taken to task for backing the wrong guy when it is easily shown that he has not made such exceptions (on the other hand). This does not strike me as a evenhanded or forthright approach to the matter.

Democrats have made a cottage industry out of attempts to discredit decisive foreign policy, because it benefits them in the short term, and they believe that America can handle the defeats that it inflicts over the long term. Madalaine Albright reflected the prevalent Democratic opinion when she told Katie Couric in January of 2002 that we should finished the job with Saddam Hussien when we had the chance in 1991. The only real reason she said this was that she wanted to make the invasion appear to be a failure; her own administration refused to do anything to respond to Saddam’s increased intransigence (starting with Iraq’s violation of the cease fire that ended the Desert Storm conflict, “Security Council Resolution 687″ along with no fewer than 6 other follow-up Security Council resolutions; viz., 1205, 1194, 1137, 1134, 1115, and 1060). Once another Bush created the opportunity and executed against it, Albright and her fellow Democrats suggest that invading Iraq is a bad idea in the first place. Thus has Kirkpatrick’s “blame America first” crowd become the “defeat America first crowd.” No matter what America does, they argue that it’s a bad idea and work as hard as possible to make it appear to be a failed policy.

Guy, I agree that Saddam alone does them no good. That’s why it’s important that he serve as an example. I also agree with you about getting Iraq on it’s own feet again. If Iraq can show the kind of resolve in putting down insurgents that it has in ridding the world of Saddam, then it has some hope.

DKL,

I take this as proof that you’re an inveterate anti-American; when good things happen, whether or not they are caused by American, you decry them and blame America. That’s really disgraceful, Dan.

There we go with the name calling again. Dude, your insults towards me would only be valid if we were the ones who executed Saddam. As danithew stated so clearly, it was the Iraqis who executed Saddam. Now, are the Iraqis (Shi’ites really, because Sunnis certainly would not have wanted Saddam dead), righteous? Is going around town finding Sunnis drilling holes in their heads, riddling their bodies with bullets and letting them lie on the streets as carcasses for street dogs a sign of a righteous people?

My statement is accurate. You wish to compare the killing of Zemnariah by a righteous people to the execution of a dictator by a vengeful and murderous people. Uh, sorry, but the comparison fails. If any comparison is to be done between Iraq today and the Book of Mormon, I would look to the final chapters of the Book of Mormon where Mormon relays the ugliness of the slaughter between the various tribes. There’s not better comparison than that.

I rejoice at Saddam’s death, as should all God-fearing, righteous people. I count your statement that we should not glory over Saddam’s death among the morally repugnant groans of a decadant and morally exhausted segment of our culture.

The insults tell me you ain’t really all that righteous, DKL.

Furthermore, continuing the criticism of the comparison, Zemnarihah was executed at the END of the conflict, so that it would be a closure to the violence. Is the violence in Iraq anywhere NEAR closure? Did not Lieberman just say we’re on the cusp of a regional conflict?

All of them — all the bad guys dead.

Uh, just who are the bad guys again?

Furthermore, on comparison to the Book of Mormon, did righteous Nephites ever attempt to go out and murder, or kill if you like, every single “bad guy” they could find? Only at the end of the Book of Mormon when they were no longer righteous.

In fact, the war in Iraq can never use the Book of Mormon as an example of what a righteous nation does. Now here comes the anti-American comment you just love to see in liberal bloggers. Get ready to attack this, DKL. Because that’s all you can do to it. You can’t look at it reasonably. You’ve got this hatred of anyone who states anything at all even remotely negative about our actions, because of course America is infallible. We don’t make mistakes. We don’t sin. We’re America. Anyways, I digress. Back to the fact that the war in Iraq can never use the Book of Mormon as an example of what a righteous nation does.

Have righteous Nephites EVER gone on the offensive with their enemy? Meaning, have they ever started a fight? Have they ever invaded enemy space or land? I think if you read carefully you’ll find that never has a righteous Nephite nation ever started a fight, attacked their enemy in enemy land, or tried to overthrow an enemy government.

Now before your huffing and puffing begins, let’s make some things clear. Teancum killed both Lamanite military leaders in the heat of battle, in battles started by Lamanites, not Nephites. Captain Moroni didn’t start attacking first in Alma 43. In modern times, Iraq did not attack us. 9/11 was done by our bestest pals, the Saudis. Our attack against Iraq was done without good justification, and that is how history will look at it, accurately.

Japan was only really a world power for a few short years, perhaps as little as one. History indicates that Sun Tzu’s approach is not terribly fruitful — only really useful for analyzing things after-the-fact, but useless when it comes to predictions.

Ugh, dude! I’m talking about his famous phrase! “Know thy enemy.” Danithew’s comments showed me how little he really understands the Arab and Muslim culture. I was recommending him go back and read a little bit about what Sun Tzu wrote. Sheesh!

Of course they are. Dictators are famously shortsighted. But they’re also watching a budding, modern, liberal Republic set an example for their own citizens. We did this with Japan as well, and look at how much more civil rights are enjoyed by the citizens of US friendly states there.

You really are delusional. Dude, name me one country in the Middle East that wishes to follow Iraq’s “flowering” footsteps.

Guy,

No doubt that Saddam was not a nice guy. I don’t see how his death will make one whit of difference in Iraq’s future. Sure, it may make the cowboy from Crawford feel a bit more macho–but I don’t see how it makes me safer here on California’s Central Coast. Nor, do I see how it does anything positive for anyone else.

Exactly.

DKL,

Saddam started out as a dime-a-dozen despot with a knack for brutality who was willing to help us further secularism in the face of religious fanaticism in the Middle east. Once he decided to act on international ambitions he became our enemy and an enemy to world peace and stability.

wow, such historical revisionism. Not uncommon among Bush supporters. See it would be detrimental to our “righteous” case to tell the truth about Saddam back in the 80s and our involvement in supporting this “dime-a-dozen despot.” You say that he became an “enemy to world peace and stability” once he acted on international ambitions. When did he first act on his “international ambitions?” In 1980 of course. It wasn’t Iran that attacked Iraq in 1980. It was the other way around. Iraq, under Saddam’s rule was the one who started the Iran-Iraq war. See, Saddam was ambitious internationally. He thought he could take Iran (and all that extra oil) at their weakened state, just after their revolution. America, having been bitten by their earlier internal involvement in Iranian politics (Operation Ajax and taking out a democratically elected government to replace it with a monarchy back in the 50s) was not too happy that the Iranians revolted against that monarchy, so under Reagan’s conservatism, America felt backing this “dime-a-dozen despot” with “international ambitions” was just fine.

So doesn’t this make America complicit in Saddam’s international ambitions? What do you think? Do you think America would have supported Saddam all the way to Tehran? What would have happened if Saddam did indeed win the war? What would have been America’s position with Saddam in control of both Iran and Iraq?

Again, this goes back to your point about the righteous “celebrating” the death of a despot. The fact that we have so strongly supported him in the past taints our “celebration.”

Hind-sight is 20/20. If we’d have known that he going to be interested in more than (say) Somoza or Chang Ka-Check or Pinochet, then we certainly wouldn’t have backed him. But there was no way to have known that at the time, and there’s nothing to apologize for. I mean, it’s not like we gave him a pass on Kuwait just because he’d been our friend for so long. Indeed, It’s to our credit that Rumsfeld, after having been there to shake hands on a deal with him in the 80s, was willing to act in our nations best interests.

Heh, we gave him a pass on Kurdistan and Iran. That’s enough to show me America does not act on righteous principles, but on self-interest.

Okay Dan, tell me what you know about Arab and Muslim culture that I don’t know. I’m all ears.

Dan, I do have some ideas about why some (certainly not all) Palestinians “adore” Saddam … I just think those reasons are a sign of cultural defect – a defect that at times manifests itself in other places. I thrust of the comment was to express extreme disapproval, not ignorance of the underlying factors.

I was mulling this over yesterday, after I wrote that comment. Saddam was extremely defiant. He was extremely powerful. Some people found these characteristics, of themselves, to be admirable. They thought of Saddam as “a real man” or “a strong leader” so to speak. In their view, he stood up to the American and Zionist aggressors. That was all that mattered to them.

The reason I think that perspective is perverted is that it ignores all the obvious harm Saddam was doing to his own people, to his neighbors and to the world.

Dan, I’m fully aware of why Palestinians would dislike the United States or at least United States policy. I’ve already said that I understand. When I said it was “inexplicable” I was simply saying that Saddam is evil, so the Palestinians shouldn’t be eager to embrace him. It wasn’t meant to infer that I couldn’t come up with the explanation.

I think the difference is the way the man is perceived. There is a famous quote about Saddam where an American leader basically said “we know he’s an S.O.B, but he’s our S.O.B.”

That is a little bit different from calling Saddam a hero, a martyr or a holy warrior. Saddam has played a much more significant role in Palestinian popular culture than he ever did here in America. Even when Donald Rumsfeld was photographed shaking hands with Saddam, no one here in the United States was posting pictures of Saddam in their home or in their stores.

The death of Saddam may not have made anyone in California safer but there are certainly Iraqis citizens that feel safer and plenty of them are celebrating.

Ya’ll,

Look, our enemy is taking advantage of our disunity and inability to sustain our leaders. The church represents a pattern that we should apply to government and home. When the Quorem of the 12 and the 1st Pres decide an issue they hotly debate it before hand. Sometimes members are assigned to research and argue each side. Then the president makes the decision and everyone falls into line.

The decision to go into Irag has been made (inspired or not). We have the responsibility to sustain our president and the US military. They are doing the job they were trained to do. We shouldn’t feel bad that they are doing it, we should be grateful.

The US military is never going to leave Irag. The miliatry is still in Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy, and Bosnia. We have been in Iraq since GW1, we are going to continue to be Iraq for a long time. Please stop steadying the Ark.

We do not live in a democracy. We live in a Representative Democracy. Pure Democracy is tyranny by that majority. We elected our leaders, we must support them once the decision is made. The debate about going into Iraq is over. Now is the time good citizens can discuss ideas on how to progress from here. If you have any great ideas please share them. There is not such thing as constuctive criticism; “critics are not builders.” We need ideas, not monday morning quarterbacking.

Obviously Kerry wouldnt have made a good commander-and-chief after his speech about “get an education or join the military”. That showed his true colors. He can’t blame alcohol either.

Remember the lesson of Acts 23:
“And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to bsmite him on the mouth. Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou awhited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God’s high priest? Then said Paul, I awist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.”

If we don’t apply true gospel principles to politics and other issues we blog about. Then why have LDS blogs at all. We are no different from everyone else out there.

Thank you for supporting my aurguments. I couldn’t have made my point any better.

so you’re saying God gave Iraq to Saddam to rule…..

so if God gave Iraq to Saddam to rule, who are we to change that!

Dan,

The time for that debate is past.

DKL: you write:
“However, I rejoice at Saddam’s death, as should all God-fearing, righteous people. I count your statement that we should not glory over Saddam’s death among the morally repugnant groans of a decadant and morally exhausted segment of our culture.” I am sure that people can rejoice at Saddam’s death. Why not, he was scum. However, I really don’t see the point. His death, in the long run, probably means little to solving anything in Iraq. I am a realist when it comes to foreign policy. I agree with how you characterize many on the left as coming up with silly moral equivalences that cannot be upheld in any reasonable discussion. However, to characterize Saddam as a man with international ambition, as you have, is overshooting the mark. He moved from informant to kingpin? So that makes him an enemy? That is nonsense. All leaders, I would suggest, have international ambitions, if by international ambitions you mean that they want nuclear weapons, etc. Obtaining weapons of mass destruction moves you to the VIP lounge of the world political game. So, the fact that Saddam was trying to gain nuclear weapons is not surprising. The question is, was he really the threat the Bush Administration claims that he was? What were/ are our interests in Middle East? Did invading Iraq further those interests? I think the answer was and is no.

DKL: you write “Democrats have made a cottage industry out of attempts to discredit decisive foreign policy, because it benefits them in the short term, and they believe that America can handle the defeats that it inflicts over the long term.” This is true. All political opposition attempts to benefit from the failures of the opposite side for short term benefit. However, you write something that needs more analysis. You say that the Democrats descredit “decisive foreign policy.” Bush’s foreign policy may have been decisive but it could very well be wrong. So, simply because it is decisive does not mean that it is not beyond criticism.

The fact of the matter is that our current standing in the Middle East, what to do about nuclear proliferation (especially in Iraq and North Korea), and our power vis-a-vis other countries, especially China is a very complex problem. Not to mention that we have a very legitimate worry about how to handle any potential terrorist threats in the future. I certainly do not have all the answers. I am sure that most of you have read the following, but let me recommend them anyway:
Thomas Ricks “Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq.” Ricks is no liberal and this book does a fine job of describing the conflation of political interests to the detriment of sound military policy. He also describes how our interests were more than likely not going to be met in our adventure in Iraq. Michael Ignatieff’ “The Lesser Evil: Political Ethis in an Age of Terror,” Jean Bethke Elshtain’s “Just War again Terror: The Burden of American Power in a Violent World,” and Benjamin Barber’s “Fear’s Empire: War, Terrorism, and Democracy in an Age of Interdependence.” The bottom line, for me, is that Saddam’s death is a little bump in the road that in the end might mean something to Iraqi’s in the future, if not now. But it means little to Americans finding our way in the future, unless of course, you believe that Saddam literally was the most dangerous thing that Americans faced on the world stage. I guess if that is the case, then one most be happy that this boogy man is dead.

Broz: Your argument that God might have allowed Saddam to rule because of the wickedness of people is seriously stretched thin. There seem to be two options: 1) The Iraqis are evil or 2) we, the US and Europe, are evil. The first option is highly unattractive because it smacks of racism and ignores the political realities and history of the region–European colonialism, the rise of and competition among various strains of Islam, and the political ambitions of countless groups and individuals. I think that you recognize this. So you write,

“Like the Lamanites they are permitted to exist until we repent. We in the US and Europe need to repent of our immorality. Most all of our social ills in our country stem from extra-marital sex, drugs, and alcohol and materialism. THis is exactly what makes good people in countries like Iraq, Iran and North Korea mistrust us and gives power to their dictators. We will not solve these problems until we repent as a nation. George Bush isn’t the problem. We are the problem.”

So, you seem to be making the claim that God is somehow allowing the people of North Korea to suffer because we engage in extra-marital sex, and a small percentage of Americans a addicted to drugs/ alcohol (the number I found from the US Government is 22 million are dependent/ addicted (year 2002). So, that means about 280 million are not). I cannot speak for the people in Iraq, but North Korea is an area I know something about and I can promise you that the people do not give power to Kim Jong Il merely because they “mistrust us” as you say. In fact, I would daresay that virtually every North Korean would be more than happy to come to the United States, now. Let me also remind you that Iran is a democracy. Of course, the people happen to have elected a regime that is very unfavorable to US interests, but I think that this regime will not last long.

If the United States is so evil, why would God punish people somewhere else? I cannot speak for God, but I am more than happy to assert that this stretches the bounds of reason. Also, I thought that one of the beliefs central to Mormonism, is that all people answer for their own sins. One way to interpret the Book of Mormon is not that entire nations sinned, which is impossible since nations are not sentient beings endowed with agency, but that enough people chose evil and thus the good people were pushed aside, killed, etc. Let’s also not forget that God has in many cases spared many for just a few righteous people. But the point I want to stress is that it is simply too facile to argue that the people of North Korea, or anywhere else, are suffering because Americans (a small percentage) might use drugs, etc. I don’t know if the United States is on the verge of doom, but I believe that the United States is even close to this state. Call me an optimist. The United States still is the greatest country in the world, but I digress.

Jared,
Yes, you are right that the Kurds are still feeling better now than pre-war. However, the majority of all Iraqis in general feel less safe. Look at the recent WPO poll that showed 61% of Iraqis approved of attacks on US troops! Obviously, Iraq is a more dangerous place now than it was when Saddam was in power.

Curtis, you’ve spent so much time arguing against me, it’s a real shame that you never really address the position that I put forward.

You seem to think that I’m implying that we didn’t know about his atrocities. I don’t know how you’d arrive at this idea based on what I’ve written here. When I say “hindsight is 20/20,” I’m not talking about atrocities — our nations leaders knew about those at the time and expressly looked the other way, just as they have in much worse situations. I’m referring exclusively to his international ambitions, which did not become apparent until the early 90s. Hussien’s atrocities don’t matter on an international scale until he began invading other countries. Iraq’s conflict with Iran concerned a border dispute that is centuries old, not the wholesale invasion and annexation of a country.

You claim that Hussain “started out” as an assassin on the CIA’s payroll. You might as well claim that he started out as an infant, or even in pre-existence for that matter. Assasins on the CIA payroll are not historically significant. When I say he “started out,” I’m referring to his assuming the executive role in Iraq, which he did when he became Vice President. Since (a) we’ve already both that he was an unsavory character with friendly US relations and (b) we’re discussing the scope of his international ambition as the head of state of a country, the relevant starting point for analyzing the relationship between Iraq under Saddam “starts out” when he assumes the executive role.

You mischaracterize Kirkpatrick’s article and arguments, and you’ve made all the same mistakes that she’s identifying in J. Earl Carter’s misguided policy. First of all, if you think that Somoza was not a moderate, than you don’t know enough about the Sandinistas. Second, part of Kirkpatrick’s argument is that it’s folly to try to replace stable regimes, because the resulting regime will be very likely to be worse that the one supplanted. The funny thing is that liberals are now using exactly this argument to say that we shouldn’t have invaded Iran in the first place — they (and even you!) say that we shouldn’t have invaded because things are worse now in Iraq than they were under Saddam. Kirkpatrick’s foreign policy theories seem to be more cogent than you imagine.

J. Earl Carter pursued a policy based on exactly the moral sensibilities that you identify. He summarized these sensibilities in a UN address in 1977 concerning peace in the post-Vietnam world (sited in Kirkpatrick):

We can no longer separate the traditional issues of war and peace from the new global questions of justice, equity, and human rights. It is a new world that calls for a new American foreign policy—a policy based on constant decency in its values and on optimism in our historical vision.

It is customary to find such sentiments laudable. In fact, they have little value, since they invariably lead to astonishingly inhumane consequences.

When Carter sought to redress the wrongs done by the traditional, US-backed autocracies in Latin America and the Caribbean, his policy was simple (as identified by Kirkpatrick):

1. Cut off or scale back arms sales and economic aid.
2. Legitimize Cuba and Soviet-backed insurgents by publicly commending their cause and denying their connections to communism.
3. Force governments to concede to the insurgents’ demands.

This threefold policy engineered the victory of communist guerillas over Somoza in Nicaragua and Eric Gairy in Grenada. It destabilized friendly governments in Guyana, El Salvador, Martinique, and Guadeloupe.

Carter achieved similar results directing this policy toward the Shaw of Iran, although the Shaw’s enemies were Islamic extremists. The Shaw’s fall brought Ayatollah Khomeini into power and created one of the largest sponsors of international terrorism.

Thus in the name of “decency” Carter destroyed friends, replaced them with enemies, moved their citizens out of the frying pan and into the fire, and destabilized Latin America and the Middle East. To Carter, this was progress. To the world, it demonstrated weakness and emboldened our enemies.

The culmination of Carter’s “constant decency” became known as the Iranian Hostage Crisis: On November 4, 1979, Iranian radicals took 90 Americans hostage.

Reagan pursued a policy of backing opponents to the regimes that Carter brought to power. These opponents may well have been mostly thugs, but they were fighting people who were doing much worse (frankly, it’s more plausible to call the people that Carter supported terrorists, since theirs were by far the most brutal methods). Likewise with the Shaw. Sure the Shah was brutal, and sure we backed him. There is no reason to apologize for this, because he was far better than the alternative. Mythmakers have tried to exalt the virtues of the government that was overthrown to implant the Shah. If you want to make a real comparison, ask anyone from Iran whether it was better off under the Shah or under the Mullahs.

Wayne, I see Saddam’s death as both an end in-and-of itself and a means to an end. There’s a sentiment being expressed here that Saddam is just a drop in the bucket when it comes to bad guys in Iraq, and there’s truth to that. But that doesn’t change the fact that if the Iraqis do start to take action, they can change the fate of their country. The pessimistic side of me says that they never took action against Saddam, and they aren’t taking action now. The optimistic side of me hopes that Saddam’s death will inspire them to greater things.

Regarding Saddam and international ambitions, once Saddam invaded and annexed Kuwait, he crossed a line and became a different, categorically worse type of world leader. He was given subsequent chances (as I’ve noted the cease fire agreement and the follow up resolutions (Security Resolutions 687, 1205, 1194, 1137, 1134, 1115, and 1060).

There are plenty of people willing to second-guess the Iraq War in hindsight. The funny thing is that they only have advice on what should have happened pretty much up until the publishing of the book. Lucky for them, they’ll never have any say, so that their armchair quarterbacking will remain untarnished.

DKL,

Regarding the Iraq and Iran conflict, as I’ve explained before: Iraq and Iran were fighting over a border, not over control over their respective countries. This does not fall under the category of international aggressive ambition.

Hmm, invading another country doesn’t fall under the category of “international aggressive ambition” to you? How the heck does aggressively and militarily trying to change a border not qualify as an “international aggressive ambition?” Sorry DKL, but Saddam’s war on Iran fits even in your ill-defined “international aggressive ambition.”

And yes, there are righteous and holy people in Iraq. Each time they kill someone like Saddam Hussien, they come closer to realizing the society that they deserve. Frankly, it’s appalling to me that you would think otherwise.

it is appalling because following this logic, there won’t be anyone left alive in Iraq. Sunnis think Shi’ites are not holy and righteous, and thus feel holy and righteous when they kill Shi’ites. Shi’ites think the same when they kill Sunnis. Sorry, but this is appalling. That you don’t think this is appalling is even more appalling. Are we appalled enough yet? ;)

I’m calling you anti-American, because I’ve yet to hear you say a single good thing about the international influence that America has had over the past 6 years — only negative ones by the truckload. Even the death of Saddam, which was made possible by American armed forces, strikes you as somehow a bad idea.

You’re calling me anti-American because that’s all you can do. You really can’t stand having America be criticized. And it shows. How dare anyone speak any wrong of America. America is perfect. America makes no mistake. America is divine. That really is pathetic, DKL.

As far as the international influence…well besides our constant humanitarian efforts (which are not anything Bush has done, but policies in place since like Kennedy), really what has Bush done that has positively influenced the world around us? How’s our relationship with Britain doing? What about our relationship with Russia? How about China? In the Middle East…well, as reported in the LA Times not long back, leaders in the Middle East do not respect Bush. Moreover, the Saudi King summoned SUMMONED! our vice president to his presence! Who has the power to summon the vice president of the United States! Sorry DKL, but the facts on the ground are on my side. There really has been little if any thing positive in the world these last six years because of Bush.

danithew, your description of the picture of Saddam reminds me of a story that I heard PJ O’Rourke relate. He was at a checkpoint in Lebanan, and a guard there was berating him for being an American and all the evil things that America did. When O’Rourke asked the soldier what he planned to do with his life, the soldier answered that he was going to be attending dental school in Michigan next year. People who bemoan the image of the US in the middle east just don’t get it.

Curtis: Albright was really one of those sepulcher’s Christ referred to when speaking of the Pharisees. All white-washed on the outside but full of dead men’s bones on the inside.

Hey man, go easy with the whited sepulcher thing. It hits pretty close to home with me. I’ve always felt a pretty strong identity with that image. It’s the Mormon thing, you know. “An ounce of appearance is worth a pound of performance”, or, on a more serious level, “it’s the calling and not the individual.” (Thankfully, that maxim about performance vs appearance does not seem applicable to executions.)

“I think that such second guessing has a helpful role”

I dont think second guessing has a helpful role. What is helpful is to honestly look at the situation as it now stands and recommend real solutions and alternatives. Then when the decision is made. Get behind it. Anyone can be a critic after-the-fact. We need people that can solve present problems.

From the beginning I understood the Iraq thing as a Korea, Japan, or Germany. I was under the complete understanding that we would be in Iraq to stay. All this time-table stuff was nonsense.

Broz: Let’s say that second guessing is something like looking at other possibilities of what could have been given the fact that we now have more information. Also, I am not assuming that you are necessarily politically conservative, but for the sake of argument, you must surely realize that even conservatives second guess, especially when it comes to Germany (I am assuming you mean WWII Germany.)Many conservatives now second guess England, France, and even the United States for appeasement in its policies with Hitler. Even Rumsfeld tried the old we shouldn’t go back to appeasement as a policy. Now I do not think that the comparison is even close. Germany had clearly outlined its ambitions. It had one of the most powerful armies in the world at the time. Japan, with the acquiescence of the United States to some degree I might add, had conquered Asia from Korea down to Indonesia. It also had a vastly superior military to the United States at the time. When Gen. Marshall took over as the Army Chief of Staff in 1939 the US Military had about 174,000 men and officers and around 200,000 national guard. There was about 36 divisions in Dec. 1941, around 1.6 million, mostly undertrained and underequipped men. (Hitler did not see the US as much of a threat at all. In fact, after the capitulation of France, he saw the UK as the last straw to the dominance he sought.)To fight WWII we would end up requiring over 200 divisions. Certainly Iraq and the US comparisons with the US vis-a-vis Germany and Japan are simply far fetched. I am not sure what you mean that the situation might be similar to Korea. Your earlier comment–”the North Korean people are reaping the consequences of our conflict with the Soviet Union after WW2. Because of the failings of the West, this created mistrust of the Russian people towards Western economy and they then could be fooled into accepting communism” clearly lacks any grounding in history. Those who managed to gain control of Russia which then became the Soviet Union, were totalitarian in their design and motivation. The people who were unfortunate enough to live in the former Soviet Union were forced to live under an oppressive regime on the threat of dislocation, loss of job, and in the case of millions, death. Certainly Soviet leaders used anti-US rhetoric to maintain power, but it is simply wrong to say that the citizens of these countries chose this form of government because the West let them down. If the West let down the Russian people in any way it might have been in capitulating to any Soviet demands when it was weak right after WWII. Perhaps we should have attacked the Soviet Union once Germany was taken care of. It would have prevented to Cold War and the misery of millions. I think it was Patton, who suggested as much, but I could be wrong in my recollection. Of course, looking at what we could have done to prevent the misery of millions would be second guessing, and I would hate to do that.

The question before us, now, is do our current actions prevent unnecessary suffering and advance US interests in the short term and, as best we can see, in the foreseeable future.

Wayne,

I think we could have accomplished basically what is happening in Iraq now–sectarian bloodshed with Saddam dead if we had supported the various coup attempts after the first Gulf War. I wonder where the conservative pundits are on that. Instead, apparently, we abandoned the idea that evil men should be dispatched with all haste at that time and we allowed quite a number of people to be killed, people we apparently encouraged to rise up against Saddam.

I don’t know how familiar you are with Cheney’s comments after the first Gulf War about going all the way. Many conservatives who supported Bush senior were angry, to say the least, that America did not go all the way. Here is what Cheney said:

And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we’d achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq…All of a sudden you’ve got a battle you’re fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques. Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq.

And later he added:

I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we’d have had to hunt him down. And once we’d done that and we’d gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we’d have had to put another government in its place.

What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi’i government or a Kurdish government or Ba’athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?

I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it’s my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.

Mind you these comments came at a time when America used 500,000 soldiers to take Kuwait from Saddam. Using Powell’s “overwhelming force” doctrine, they were quickly successful in their objective, and yet, even with 500,000 Cheney didn’t think taking Baghdad would have been worth it.

Now, I realize that some Americans had a paradigm shift after 9/11 and jumped at their own shadows, but you really have to ask yourself: why would these same exact people as in 1991 think that in 1991 against a more powerful Iraq you would need 500,000 troops to take back a small, tiny Kuwait, and then need only 150,000 later on to completely take Iraq, a much larger country? It’s not like they didn’t have a test run, and all….Furthermore, as I’ve stated earlier, the Pentagon has done several war games analysis of invading and controlling Iraq. Their worst case scenarios have been realized; their worst case scenarios are what we see today.

There is no Monday Morning quarterbacking going on here. This is not new. We knew the problems of invading Iraq BEFORE we invaded Iraq. But alas, America’s blood was boiling too high after 9/11 to think rationally enough. See, Bush knew this and used 9/11 to get Americans on board his war on Saddam. But those of us who were against the war from the beginning were right. Not because we were against war, but because we saw the evidence from the MOUTHS OF OUR LEADERS THEMSELVES that it would be foolish to take Baghdad.

But alas Americans have very short attention spans and probably did not remember these comments, nor news reports of the Pentagon war games, or they had danithew’s indestructible optimism and thought America could handle anything, even though we are only 30 years away from America’s worst military intervention.

Americans really have a hard time accepting bad news.

Dan,

I respect the fact that you have strong opinions about things. It doesn’t really matter to me whether or not you like George Bush or if you despise what is happening in Iraq. I like the fact that people can have different opinions about things.

What I don’t respect is your complete and total obsessiveness – your compulsive need to argue and argue and argue the same points over and over and over again. It’s obnoxious.

Anne,

I think you owe me a dinner at Olive Garden. :)

DKL:
“You seem to think that I’m implying that we didn’t know about his atrocities. I don’t know how you’d arrive at this idea based on what I’ve written here.“

Excuse my misunderstanding.

DKL
“When I say “hindsight is 20/20,” I’m not talking about atrocities — our nations leaders knew about those at the time and expressly looked the other way, just as they have in much worse situations. I’m referring exclusively to his international ambitions, which did not become apparent until the early 90s.“

Oh I see. So his border dispute with Iran was a bit different than his border dispute with Kuwait then? Even though the aggression against the Kuwaitis pale in comparison to the gas attacks etc. against Iran? That’s the sort of thinking that the USA has always employed… enemies of the US are expendable whereas those friendly are at the most, only semi-expendable.

DKL:
“You mischaracterize Kirkpatrick’s article and arguments, and you’ve made all the same mistakes that she’s identifying in J. Earl Carter’s misguided policy. First of all, if you think that Somoza was not a moderate, than you don’t know enough about the Sandinistas.“

I know plenty about the Sandinistas. They had their problems, but at least they were the democratically elected government of the country (after 1984 that is). Somoza was a mass murderer, killing tens of thousands while bombing residential neighborhoods in Managua in his fight against the Sandinistas. It seems that a study of the history there is needed.

DKL:
“Second, part of Kirkpatrick’s argument is that it’s folly to try to replace stable regimes, because the resulting regime will be very likely to be worse that the one supplanted. The funny thing is that liberals are now using exactly this argument to say that we shouldn’t have invaded Iran in the first place — they (and even you!) say that we shouldn’t have invaded because things are worse now in Iraq than they were under Saddam.“

Kirkpatrick is a big supporter of US hegemony without regard to the democratic ambitions of sovereign nations. I reject her position outright on principle. You must have meant Iraq here. You don’t understand my position. I don’t start at the beginning of the war. My opposition to US policy there goes all the way back to post WWII. The US has been shutting down leftist movements all over the world for a long time, without regard to the desires of the people who live in a foreign nation. We did the same in setting up Saddam. We should not be meddling in other nation’s business in the first place.

Having said that, Iraq is obviously worse off than it was before Saddam was evicted. There are much better ways to get rid of a dictator, and those are usually found by the people in the country of question. For example, when the Shiites rose up against Saddam post-Gulf War, it would have been a good thing for us to have given them the weapons they wanted, instead we hovered overhead and watched Saddam massacre them as he was again committing atrocities in his own country and not against those we termed our friends.

DKL:
“It is customary to find such sentiments laudable. In fact, they have little value, since they invariably lead to astonishingly inhumane consequences.
When Carter sought to redress the wrongs done by the traditional, US-backed autocracies in Latin America and the Caribbean, his policy was simple (as identified by Kirkpatrick):
Cut off or scale back arms sales and economic aid.
Legitimize Cuba and Soviet-backed insurgents by publicly commending their cause and denying their connections to communism.
Force governments to concede to the insurgents’ demands.
This threefold policy engineered the victory of communist guerillas over Somoza in Nicaragua…”

I’m not a carbon-copy of Carter… however, it is obvious that the Nicaraguan people wanted Somoza out of there. It is obvious that the Sandinistas were very popular among the people as is evidenced by their social program successes and their victory in the election of 1984. If our policy had been to continue supporting Somoza, we would have been complicit in his crimes. We would have been deterring democracy instead of supporting it. Of course, that is what the US usually does. We support friendly dictators because they rule with an iron hand and our businesses are able to make a killing in profits in their country while their people languish. It is little wonder that the secret combinations in the US support dictators in these places and that the people there rebel.

DKL:
“Carter achieved similar results directing this policy toward the Shaw of Iran, although the Shaw’s enemies were Islamic extremists. The Shaw’s fall brought Ayatollah Khomeini into power and created one of the largest sponsors of international terrorism.“

Are you saying that the Carter was responsible for the Shah’s fall? I don’t think that viewpoint is supported. Correct me if I’m wrong. Of course, this whole revolution thing could have been avoided if the CIA hadn’t helped in the overthrow of Mossadegh in the first place… but, alas, our memory doesn’t go back that far, and when someone reminds people that the US was responsible for the overthrow of a popular, democratically elected government in Iran in the 1950’s, and then supported the Shah, who’s oppressive rule lead to the revolution… a person could get accused of blaming all of the world’s ills on the US…

DKL:
“Thus in the name of “decency” Carter destroyed friends, replaced them with enemies, moved their citizens out of the frying pan and into the fire, and destabilized Latin America and the Middle East. To Carter, this was progress. To the world, it demonstrated weakness and emboldened our enemies.“

This is what George Kennan, the head planner of the State Dept. after WWII said:

“We have about 50 percent of the world’s wealth but only 6.3 percent of its population,” Kennan wrote. “In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.”“The day is not far off,” Kennan concluded, “when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts.”

Thus we began to support dictators and tyrants all over the world, to rule and reign over this world with blood and horror, buying up armies and allowing atrocities to occur under out watch while suppressing the democratic ambitions of most of these nations.

DKL:
“The culmination of Carter’s “constant decency” became known as the Iranian Hostage Crisis: On November 4, 1979, Iranian radicals took 90 Americans hostage.
Reagan pursued a policy of backing opponents to the regimes that Carter brought to power. These opponents may well have been mostly thugs, but they were fighting people who were doing much worse (frankly, it’s more plausible to call the people that Carter supported terrorists, since theirs were by far the most brutal methods).“

You’re telling me that the Ayatollah’s atrocities are worse than Saddam’s? You call the Iranian’s terrorists and say that they support terrorism in sponsoring Hamas or Hezbollah, but if you were even handed, you’d see that they were only doing on a smaller scale the same thing that the US has been doing for a long time. The US support of the terrorist Contras was a lot worse than anything that the two H’s have done in the middle east. Operation Condor, the death squads of many Latin American nations… this list of our terror support is quite extensive.

DKL:
“Likewise with the Shaw. Sure the Shah was brutal, and sure we backed him. There is no reason to apologize for this, because he was far better than the alternative.”

The alternative (for all of you who were never taught this in World History) was to leave Mossadegh in power as was the will of the Iranian people, and give no support to the Shah. Then the revolution would never have occurred.

DKL, it seems that our differences lie in that you support the suppression of the democratic ambitions of sovereign people while I support not interfering with the democratic process from the beginning and if it puts the US back a bit in being richer than the rest of the world, then so be it. It is not given that one person should possess that which is above another, for this purpose the world lieth in sin.

Curtis, Hussien’s border dispute with Iran was on par with Galtieri’s taking over the Faklands. Kuwait was different, because it involved the wholesale annexation of a sovereign country. This is a pretty well accepted difference, and it won’t do to try to pretend that they’re somehow equivalent.

The Somozas won more elections than the Sandinistas, and they did so without exiling those who disagreed with him, turning millions of citizens into refugees (the most telling measure of misery is that which leads people who have lived on a subsistence level for generations to pick up and go elsewhere on their own), and shutting down all sources of opposition (e.g., Le Prensa).

The US shut down Soviet backed leftist regimes. The US never sought to avert leftist regimes in England, France, Germany, and Canada. I’m also familiar with the myths like the one that there was some kind of politically stable democratic regime in Chile that was going to pursue leftist policies and the US shut it down and installed Pinochet in order to keep a leftist government from succeeding. Unfortunately, this is not a plausible position unless you’re liable to fantasies about stable South American governments. These kinds of things have a funny way of only applying to the failed regimes of yesteryear that involved the USA, and not to the ones that are failing all around us without any US intervention.

You’re very much correct to point out that Carter is the rightful heir to George Kennan’s policy. Never has a major American foreign policy “thinker” been so totally wrong about so many things for so long (though in another decade or so, Carter will claim that title). It was Kennan who advocated unilateral nuclear weapon reductions and argued that we should drop our complaints about Soviet civil-rights abuses and posited that nuclear war with the Soviet Union was unavoidable. Kennan opposed every aspect of Reagan’s theory that we could win (and that we had a moral obligation to win) the cold war and every bit of the policy he executed to effect a win. After arguing for years that military confrontation with the Soviets was inevitable, he quickly claimed that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was inevitable in order to minimize Reagan’s accomplishment of winning the cold war by doing exactly the opposite of what Kennan recommended. Even in your specific quote, Kennan is wrong. Economically weak nations don’t generally declare war on rich nations, and terrorism is a crime of opportunity — not of envy. It’s Kennan’s own policies that supported and propped up regimes like the Soviet Union, which reigned over this world with more blood and horror than everyone we backed combined. As I said, it’s customary to laud such sentiments, but they really do have terribly evil consequences. You should know better than to quote Kennan.

The Contras were anti-Marxist revolutionaries who counted a fair number of thugs among its members and leadership. The continued attempt to find moral equivalence between revolutionaries with bloody hands and terrorists is too absurd to require a reply.

This myth that Mossadegh would somehow have been the savior of Iraq is a pipe dream.

Do you take the democratic ambitions of the current Iraqi people seriously? I really don’t. At least, not seriously enough to remove our armed forces and leave them on their own. You seem to agree, but you entertain some fantasy that every other failed democratic ambition was somehow greater and more worthy of our respect.

DKL:
“Curtis, Hussien’s border dispute with Iran was on par with Galtieri’s taking over the Faklands. Kuwait was different, because it involved the wholesale annexation of a sovereign country. This is a pretty well accepted difference, and it won’t do to try to pretend that they’re somehow equivalent.“

I’m not following you here. You’re saying that the Iran-Iraq war was less of a sin than the Iran-Kuwait war because annexation was part of the latter? Therefore, a devastating war that took over a million lives was ok while a war that took such few lives that I can’t even find numbers on Kuwaiti casualties, was worse of a crime because it involved annexation? Sorry, can’t agree with you on that one.

DKL:
“The Somozas won more elections than the Sandinistas, and they did so without exiling those who disagreed with him.“

Dude, Somoza won the elections in 1974 after declaring 9 opposition parties illegal! Real democratic eh. Whereas, the only real fair election the Sandinistas participated in up to that point (the 1984 election) was widely touted by the vast majority of international election observers as the freest and fairest election in Nicaragua‘s history. The US didn‘t recognize the election results, of course, but that was to be expected. The elections were transparent and hotly contested and the Sandinistas won it fair and square… different from Somoza‘s election time shenanigans.

DKL:
“The US shut down Soviet backed leftist regimes.”

Does that make it right?

DKL:
I’m also familiar with the myths like the one that there was some kind of politically stable democratic regime in Chile that was going to pursue leftist policies and the US shut it down and installed Pinochet in order to keep a leftist government from succeeding. Unfortunately, this is not a plausible position unless you’re liable to fantasies about stable South American governments.

Again, stability is all you’re aiming for here apparently. The democratic will of the people means nothing to you? Allende was elected democratically in spite of the fact that the US spent more money on Chilean elections that year per capita, than the US spent on its own election in 1968! Immediately, the CIA tried to instigate a coup against him and sought to stop him from being inaugurated. They botched an assassination attempt on a Chilean General and then the US worked hard to economically strangle the Chilean economy. Allende’s presidency was apparently tumultuous with industry wide strikes and unrest, but he was the democratically elected president of that country and we had no business instigating coups and setting cruel and punishing economic sanctions. Of course, we then supported the terrible Pinochet who murdered his thousands and got rid of his opponents. Even his economic successes were a myth as the success of Chile’s economy rested largely upon the nationalization of the Copper Industry… a product of Allende’s administration which Pinochet gladly took credit for.

Your theme is stability, but if the kind of stability Pinochet brought to Chile or that Somoza brought to Nicaragua is what you want… We’re definitely not on the same boat.

I suppose you would have been upset by the lack of stability during the Revolutionary War of the US and Britain and would have cursed the British for not maintaining a more iron-fisted rule over those rebel/terrorists in the States.

DKL:
“You should know better than to quote Kennan.“

All of the stuff you say about Kennan is beside the point of the quote that I was quoting. Kennan spoke of the need to do away with pleasantries like human rights and democracy (exactly the opposite of Carter’s doctrine) and support dictators who rule with an iron fist, in order to maintain the disparity in wealth we enjoy in this country over that of other countries.

DKL:
The Contras were anti-Marxist revolutionaries who counted a fair number of thugs among its members and leadership. The continued attempt to find moral equivalence between revolutionaries with bloody hands and terrorists is too absurd to require a reply.

Wow, you’re pretty far gone in your self-deception here. A rag-tag band of a few thousand men, armed and financed by the US, fighting against the democratically elected government of Nicaragua with the estimated results of about 100,000 casualties, using techniques such as blowing up schools and hospitals… this is not terrorism? Calling the Contras terrorists is too absurd to reply to? Most analysts today will call that war a terrorist war. I’d say you’re definitely in the minority here amigo.

DKL:
“This myth that Mossadegh would somehow have been the savior of Iraq is a pipe dream.”

He didn’t have to be a savior. All he needed to be was what the people elected him to be. And then, the next election would have produced someone else or the same guy, it doesn’t matter. A vital democracy was squashed by US interference and this is what the Iranian people rebelled against in the late 70’s.

DKL:
“Do you take the democratic ambitions of the current Iraqi people seriously? I really don’t. At least, not seriously enough to remove our armed forces and leave them on their own.“

I agree that the Iraqi people don’t seem to be headed for a very viable unified, democratic government. However, the people there want us out and I think we should obey their wishes.

DKL:
“Curtis, I neglected to respond to your question about whether Saddam was better than Ayotollah: I think that this is irrelevant.”

That’s fine. I was responding to your assertions that the government of Iran was much worse than the government of Iraq.

DKL:
“Besides, if the Ayotollah hadn’t been anti-American, we’d have been happy to sell weapons to him, too. Shoot, we may have even brokered a peace deal.“

Check your history again. We did give him weapons via Israel. We openly supported Iraq while secretly supporting Iran during the war. Look into the October Surprise associated with that deal and be ready to have your mind blown.

DKL:
“If you wish to be consistent, you’ll need to take your critique back much further than just the post WWII era. I allude in the preceding paragraph that our WWI policy (favoring Britain and France until the Germans attacked us and forced us into the war) was based on our current alliances irrespective of who was wrong and who was right.“

Quite right. It goes back more into the more distant history than WWII. I just don’t see many people commenting on what happened before 1979 and didn’t want to blow any minds out.

However, we must pursue relations on a moral basis. Your arguments haven’t convinced me otherwise. We must do the morally right thing if we expect to be acceptable before God. Otherwise, we are that nation spoken of by the Savior in 3Nephi:

10 And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.
15 But if they will not turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, I will suffer them, yea, I will suffer my people, O house of Israel, that they shall go through among them, and shall tread them down, and they shall be as salt that hath lost its savor, which is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of my people, O house of Israel.

Or that spoken of by Moroni in Ether 8:
23 Wherefore, O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get power and gain—and the work, yea, even the work of destruction come upon you, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you, to your overthrow and destruction if ye shall suffer these things to be.

24 Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up.

25 For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people…

Curtis, regarding the Iran-Iraq war, the number of people who died is irrelevant. A local dispute between two countries over the location of a border is categorically different from a dispute which seeks to rob a nation of sovereignty. In the one case, you have two nations that recognize the right of the other to exist, but have a dispute over some small amount of territory. This is a local dispute. In the other case, you have one nation unilaterally deciding that it should rule over another nation, and then effecting that ambition by military force. This is not a local problem, but an international problem. Furthermore, it involves the setting of an international precedent that will have worse long term consequences than any border dispute. Consider the hypothetical scenarios that might have prevented WWII if only nations had acted to prevent axis powers from annexing other nations.

Measuring moral necessity by the number of lives at stake results in an ad hoc policy approach that turns reason and morality on their head. Attempts to prevent the long-term catastrophe that can result from bad foreign policy precedents becomes unjustifiable or less justifiable (e.g., taking Kuwait back from Saddam), because there aren’t many lives immediately at stake. Carter’s foreign policy of “decency” failed exactly because his calculus sough exactly this kind of short-term solutions.

Regarding the Sandinistas, they won elections after millions of their opponents left as refugees, and after all information outlets for the opposition had been shut down for years. That’s less real democracy than the Somozas had. At least the Somozas had opposition press outlets at work before and during their elections. Moreover, where there is no confidence in democracy, you can’t point to the outcome of an election as a reflection of the will of the people.

And yes, of course it was right to shut down Soviet-backed leftist regimes. My only regret is that the US and its allies weren’t more aggressive about it. Until Reagan and Thatcher came along, people felt that shutting down Soviet-backed leftist regimes just staved-off the inevitable. They didn’t realize that shutting down Soviet-back leftists contributed to the downfall of the Soviet Union. It’s appalling that until Reagan’s election brought about an American policy that refused to countenance any increase in Soviet influence, the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence increased during the tenure of every American head of state since WWII.

Regarding stability, my point about the instability of South American governments is that it makes “democratic will” mere fantasy. Without stability, democratic will cannot exist, because there is no mechanism for its expression. The unstable “democracies” in South America aren’t robust reflections of the will of anybody but the folks who’ve managed to seize and preserve power. You’re equivocating if you suppose that the term “democratic will” means the same thing when you’re discussing the US or Europe (where it can even encompass results handed down by justices appointed for life) as when you’re discussing South America.

You have this pre-WWI outlook on democracy, as though you can just implant democracies and they’ll work. WWII might never have occurred if US and Western European leaders hadn’t have been so naively ambitious about implanting democratic governments in Eastern and Central Europe. By the time WWII broke out, the only WWI-created democracy still functioning was Czechoslovakia.

When it comes to establishing stable democracies, the most reliable road has always been to be a US-backed authoritarian regime like Taiwan and South Korea.

Regarding the Revolutionary war, the colonies already had stable democratic regimes, and were not trying to overthrow the government in London and replace it with one of our choosing. Strictly speaking, it’s a mistake to refer to the US withdrawal from the British empire as “The American Revolution” because it was actually a “The American Secession.” But I suppose we don’t call it that because it’s not as exciting.

Regarding Kennan, he is bemoaning the need to abandon American principles. Make no mistake, he was not advocating brutality. He was all about being nice to enemies to induce gratitude (i.e., appeasement). The problem is that Kennan didn’t actually know enough about history to offer an informed opinion. And yes, Kennan did generally support Carter’s foreign policy decisions, just as he opposed Reagan’s. Kennan is the most discredited American foreign policy advocate in the 20th century, and his outlook has no place in serious discussions about what our foreign policy should be. (I’m in the minority in believing this of course, but the record couldn’t be clearer.)

Regarding the Contras, it’s a mistake to refer to them as single united group. They weren’t organized in any sense like a political party. The anti-marxists military groups that arose after the destruction of anti-marxist political parties were initially funded by Argentina. You may bemoan that they went after civilian targets, but until the mid-1990s, everybody went after civilian targets. Even now, most countries still do. Given that the Sandinistas killed more people than the contras, the only basis you have for saying that the Sandinistas aren’t terrorists is that they were running the place. Thus, you’ve surreptitiously introduced stability your measure of legitimacy here. This is, however, a poor place to use it.

In the end, the reason why the Contras were not terrorists is simple: They didn’t just up and start killing people to oppose the contras when they might have chosen a more moderate route of petitioning the government. The regime that they opposed left them no alternative path to reform besides using armed aggression; the Sandinistas ruthlessly slaughtered participants of opposition political parties and opposition media outlets.

Iran-Contra doesn’t have anything to do with this discussion. The Iranian arms portion of Iran-Contra was an outreach program to moderate Iranian elements. The proof that it was inconsequential arms-wise is that Israel brokered the deal. I’m familiar with all the conspiracy theories surrounding Iran-Contra. The only respect to which they blow ones mind is the extant to which they defy reason.

Regarding the scriptures, they’re a poor guide to the theoretical points of foreign policy. In our society, we’d jail and execute any military leader who addresses a civilian authority the way Moroni addressed Pahoran.

Regarding how far back we go in history, no student of 19th or 20th century warfare can claim to have a well rounded point of view unless they’ve read The Peloponnesian War. I think that it’s important to discuss it all — going back to the first war recorded with reasonable accuracy by Thucydides. There is no better benchmark.

It seems to me that folks are presenting a bit of a false dichotomy. We have the Realists (well defended by DKL) and then the “democracy at any cost” folks. Surely even democracies can be problematic, especially in the context of the cold war with the Soviet Union which was seeking the domination of the West. Often choices are between two evils where one tries to pick the best one. The idea that just because something is democratic in some sense makes it a real (i.e. western) Democracy ala Canada or Germany seems ludicrous. (And yes I’m consistent – I have a hard time seeing Iraq as Democratic despite the elections: ditto with Afghanistan)

I also think we should be careful speaking about Iraq. One can support the neo-con ideal of a third way between what I’ll call Carterism and the Real Politic of Kirkpatrick and Kissinger. The problem of Rumsfeld and Bush was (IMO) massive incompetence, naivete regarding the region and trying to do things on the cheap. It’s sad that the desire for promoting real democracy has largely been killed on the altar of a misbegotten Iraq policy.

Looking to the past though I think one can see elements of Real Politic that were justifiable in principle. So supporting Iraq against Iran to limit the influence of this fundamentalist Islam was good. Allowing an “anything goes” policy was morally indefensible. Even a lot of people involved regretted this.

The biggest problem I see in looking to the past though was ignoring the threat the USSR posed. In some ways we really lucked out. I strongly disagree with those who promoted a Carteresque policy which seems to have inevitably helped the USSR. However I also strongly feel that the more “anything goes” policy also hurt us and was too short sited. Further it tended to de-humanize folks in these nations by suggesting that defending them wasn’t really as justifable as say defending West Germans or French.

The error in that conception, Dan, is in assuming that the democracy the neo-cons wanted was simply elections. That seems demonstrably false since early on the major neo-cons were arguing that elections were insufficient and were putting incredible emphasis on human rights and rule of law. Further most of the neo-cons were arguing for at least a half million troops if not more.

clark,

The error in that conception, Dan, is in assuming that the democracy the neo-cons wanted was simply elections.

From all the op-eds I’ve read from the AEI and the Weekly Standard, I haven’t heard them be too upset that the only “success” has been elections. In their op-eds they try to keep the optimism up, and seem out of touch with reality. They may have said before the war that it wasn’t just a matter of elections, but their opinions since the war began seem to indicate that they have thought things were going just fine. Only after the November 2006 elections have they changed their tune……er slightly, by like .0001 degrees. :P

Further most of the neo-cons were arguing for at least a half million troops if not more.

Do you have references of that from before the war began?

Just to add, the error the neo-cons did make (and which I fault myself for) was in assuming that western ideals were roughly held by everyone.

I agree, that definitely is one misconception a lot of Americans have, and it stems from not understanding the Middle East, and societies in general. I think Arabs could enjoy democracy and secularism. The problem is that they will also probably have to go through their own enlightenment, Arabs within their culture pushing for modernization. You get this in some sections of the Arab world, such as the UAE and Qatar, but even there, you get a mix of the old and the new.

What neo-cons should have done is advocate pushing stronger for democracy and openness with our allies first. Yes, it takes longer, and cannot work within the confines of an American election cycle, but we’re looking for lasting change, not election points.

Russia had a connection to western development and the enlightenment that the middle east simply doesn’t.

Exactly. Russians throughout the 1800s and early 1900s kept looking towards the West, especially France. Britain never trusted the Russians enough to really let them in though.

With China we managed to engage them and more or less push elements of the enlightenment on them. It’s taken time but has arguably been pretty successful. One plus for Kissinger and Nixon.

Well said. China also realized the power of engagement and economics. They don’t have to conquer anyone militarily. There’s no need when you can buy up everybody’s debt.

I think the majority of Iraqis do roughly want western benefits and rights about as much as the Russians did.

Their culture isn’t ready for it yet. And what I mean by that isn’t just their interpretation of Islam, but also the type of government they are used to, the type of control over their lives, the allowance of tribal hatred to stir, but not boil over. A democracy, where they feel they can do whatever they want ends up being horrible, because their instincts drive them to do damage to those who they hate, but were unable to do anything about before.

Dan, archives of the Weekly Standard are only available to subscribers, however the wiki for William Kristol notes his criticisms of Bush and Rumsfeld fairly early.

Clark,

No, I tend to avoid reading Kristol as much as I can. As far as their criticism of Bush, their criticism is that he wasn’t doing enough of their policy, when it is their policy that was flawed from the beginning. They still remained silent in forcing a change of leadership when opportunities arose, because obviously Kerry would have gotten troops out, and their dreams would have vanished. The only problem is that by their silence in removing the real problems from power (Bush and Cheney), they let the problem fester and get even worse. Fukuyama did the right thing. His colleagues should have followed his lead.

my head hurts!

DKL,

no one puts all of Bush’s foreign policy on neo-cons. Just Iraq. That’s their baby.

and please name what straw man I supposedly employ.

BTW – I read Fukuyama’s essays both before his “turn” and after. I confess I’ve not been terribly impressed with him.

I don’t agree, Dan. Kerry is a putz.

No Dan, I just can’t agree with that statement. As bad a job as Bush has done I can imagine things being far worse. Sorry, I guess you can’t.

That’s the problem with the Democratic mindset. They think that all they have to do is portray Republicans poorly (which isn’t hard) and that somehow they have the right to do whatever they want. The American public will see over the next few years just how bad a mistake that is. The Democrats are going to end up doing most of the stupid things the Republicans did and then more. You already see it in the congress.

But Dan, by the same measure it’s not hard for Republicans to portray Democrats poorly for nearly the same reasons – albeit for a longer period.

As for what I think Kerry would have done, I don’t think he’d have taken the thread of Islamic fundamentalism seriously. I don’t think he’d have used sufficient means to try and discern their plots. I believe pulling totally out of Iraq would leave Iraq into a win for Iran and Al Queda.

gst,

the question was about how things could have been worse had Kerry been in power instead of Bush in 2004. By that point, all 10 of your points were no longer valid. And even so, I can name you ten more things that are actually far worse than your ten now that Bush took action in Iraq. But we’d just be squabbling at that point.

Clark,

No, Republicans can’t, because Democrats have not been in power. Any remark about Democrats is now outdated, because we’re in a “new paradigm” post-9/11. You don’t know how Democrats would actually act, nor if their policies would be successful, based on anything previous to 9/11.

Finally, what gives you the impression Kerry would not have taken the threat of Islamic fundamentalism seriously? Because it seems, by your very point, that you don’t believe Democrats would take Islamic fundamentalists seriously by not backing Bush’s policy, as if that is the only way to take Islamic fundamentalism seriously.

In fact, Bush’s actions have only further stoked Islamic fundamentalism, rather than put out the fire. Sure lots of people died, and yeah, you got Saddam….but the violence continues at an even worse rate. That’s not considered a success. Meanwhile, the mastermind behind 9/11 continues to laugh in our faces from his comfortable hiding place deep inside Pakistan, our bestest ally in the “war on terror.”

No, supporting and following Bush’s policies are not the only way to take Islamic fundamentalism seriously.

I would be interested to hear the “ten more things that are actually far worse than your ten now that Bush took action in Iraq.” No doubt there are things that are worse now in Iraq than before the invasion. But is the status of Iraq now worse than the status quo ante? I don’t believe so. I don’t think that many Iraqis think so.

Your better argument, it seems to me, is that we’re worse off than before, not that Iraq is. Which is the new, isolationist “tough shit, Iraqis!” stance that Bush-hatred has forced the American left to adopt.

Criminy, Saddam Hussein was practically Fiorello LaGuardia! Too bad they executed the guy.

Dan, but simultaneously and in part due to Bush Syria lost power in Lebannon. Now arguably they’ve been making a comeback. But the whole Syrian situation is more complex than you suggest.

Iran has gained power and influence, but how much of that is due to Bush’s and Rumsfeld’s poor choices in how to deal with al Sadr? Further, wouldn’t Iran have gained far more influence if Kerry had one and simply pulled out the troops? Do you seriously think Iran wouldn’t have filled the void of a withdrawing US? You accused GST of dealing with the past (I think he just misread the question) but you’re assuming electing Kerry would somehow make all of the consequences of Bush’s previous four years somehow disappear. One has to deal with the situation in 2004 and not pre-invasion. And Kerry’s plans (to the degree one could even make sense of them) seemed far worse than Bush’s.

As to your other points. Exactly how would 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 be better had Kerry won and pulled out? Al Sadr would be running more wild. There would be less stability and security because there would have been an all out civil war. And more Iraqis would be leaving. Further, because we ignore the basic “you break it you fix it” policy the US would be even less trusted. Since now we’d be seen not only as engaged in an unjustified war but with leaving things a mess as soon as it starts to cost us.

I hope you all pay attention to the above link, because as I go back and look at some of your comments, you appear to be ignorant of this fact. The poll was done by face to face interview with 2000 Iraqi residents and is pretty authoratative in setting things straight here.

Curtis, a poll in 1944 would have shown that Americans thought that things were better during the great depression. A poll in Russia is likely to show a large number of people saying things were better under communism. You can’t reasonably expect people to take your poll results seriously.

DKL,
Regarding annexing a foreign nation’s land. Is it as serious of a crime that Israel has annexed Palestinian land in the 1967 war? Does Israel’s continued refusal to abide numerous UNSC resolutions demanding a return of Palestinian land as well as the Golan Heights to Syria, justify potential US military action against Israel? Should we go in and kill 100,000 Israelis as we did with Iraq? Is there a double standard here?

Dan and Curtis: Here’s a link to the article that ends the discussion.

DKL,

You seriously give the last word to Anne Coulter? Dude, have you learned nothing yet?

Dan (#111), the Government during WWII carefully censored most information about the war ensuring only good news went back to the folks at home. Ask yourself when the problems of the Bulge were known by average Americans. There was a severe propoganda program during WWII that is unthinkable today. Had we had todays journalists during WWII it is (IMO) doubtful that we would have defeated Germany and Japan.

Curtis (#108) I think Israeli settlements are a major problem. I think most of them are unjustified and need to be removed for there to be any peace. However at the same time the borders, if there is a de facto state of war, need to be defensible. During an ongoing war holding territory is completely understandable. As to the details of the 1967 War and land I’m a little more mixed given that all the other powers attacked Israel, attempting to wipe it off the map. I tend to think some of the territory gained during that period (i.e. Jerusalem) just aren’t going to go in any eventual peace process. But complaining about it now during an ongoing war with all the powers except Egypt seems a tad silly. The only way Israel/Palestine/Lebannon/Syria will be settled is through negotiation. Expecting Israel to simply accede everything without steps by the other powers is quite silly (IMO).

Congressional oversight of the Executive branch?

I’d love that to be the case. However my prediction (which hasn’t been tested one way or the other yet) is that Democrats will use “oversight” primarily to score political points and not to actually engage in any practical oversight. It will be little better than the Republicans of the last four years that likewise used their oversight abilities primarily for political aims.

Actually listening to the generals and the American public who both have said the surge is a stupid idea?

Umm, most Generals testifying before congress were asking for this over the last while. The majority view among Generals has been to increase, not decrease, troop levels. There have been a few promoting the opposite (and getting most of the press in some circles) but they certainly aren’t the ones testifying before Congress and don’t appear to be making up the majority.

Democrats said they’d listen to the military in ways Bush didn’t. Unfortunately (as I predicted) what they really meant was that they’d listen to the particular guys who told them what they wanted to hear to support their pre-established views. Hmmm… Kind of like Bush.

Sorry, but the absolute worst thing Republicans have done over the past six years is that they let the Executive branch run America like an empire.

Sorry, but if the elected President, the elected congress, and (more often than not) the appointed judicial branch decide the President’s actions are OK, that isn’t running America like an empire. Quite the contrary. Now you and I may disagree with the actions. But to suggest that it isn’t really democratic (which is how I’m taking your comments) is silly. If you mean by “empire” more a kind of Roman-like conquest and domination of the word then you are simply being ridiculous. One of the problems in Iraq has been that we’ve given power to an elected Iraqi government that is incompetent. A lot of the problems laid on Bush’s feet (i.e. the manner of Sadaam’s trial and execution) are more due to giving power to the democratically elected powers in Iraq. So those arguing against this are typically the ones demanding empire.

Were they to have held the purse strings a little tighter, could the Bush administration have gotten away with such incompetence? Probably not nearly as much as they have. Rumsfeld would have been removed after Abu Ghraib, for example, not two whole years later!

Just a note, but both I and the major neo-cons called for Rumsfeld’s resignation immediately after Abu Gharib. To suggest that congress should have withheld money though is ridiculous. The implication that the Democrats would have (which I actually don’t believe they would have or will – it would be political suicide) is an illustration of just how silly some of the anti-Bush rhetoric is. “Give me what I want at all costs: the ends justify the means” I know, let’s cut off the money for the 150,000 troops in harms way risking their life. That’ll show them. The ethics of such a proposal boggles the mind.

Seriously, what evidence do you see that Democrats are not “strong on terror” before they even came to power

Well, their attacks on monitoring of international calls. The cries by many to turn it into a criminal matter. (Obviously not by those in power – those guys are a tad bit more intelligent) The cry in 2004 to then pull out of Iraq as if that would make things better. (A better case could be made now, although I think it would still be a mistake) I don’t have time but I’m sure with a bit of googling I could find a slew of comments by Kerry on this. Note that I was talking about Kerry and not all Democrats. Some actually had half a brain, for instance. (Biden I respect, for instance, even though I disagree with him – why he wasn’t the nomination for 2004 I’ll never know)

Bush sacrificed Lebanon on the altar of Israeli preference, even though supporting Israel’s utter destruction of Lebanon was bad both for Israel and Lebanon, and only good for Hezbollah and Syria and Iran.

I think it more complex than that. How things shake out in Lebanon isn’t clear. Although clearly Syria is making a play for regaining control via Hezbolla. I don’t think blaming Bush for surprising Israeli incompetence is fair. Further calling this “Israel’s utter destruction of Lebanon” is silly.

The ONLY functioning Arab democracy, and Bush lets it burn.

Yeah Bush let it. Israel is completely under Bush’s control…

Come on. I’ll be somewhat critical of Bush during that period. But once the war was on things got quite a bit more complex. Further, as I then predicted, the world demanded acquiescence of Israel and let Hezbolla go scott free and completely rearm and regain their preparations for attacks on Israel again. Talk about double standards.

Much of it deals with Bush’s and Rumsfeld’s poor choices. Too few troops. This choice lies at the feet of Bush and Rumsfeld (even though Rumsfeld passes the buck—as usual—to Tommy Franks).

It was more than that. Rumsfeld’s neglect of the computer models for logicistics and planning for MPs was awful. That also was, by congressional report, one of the major causes of Abu Gharib.

Kerry would have pulled the troops out (not immediately, but certainly would have been working on the best plan to do so—probably Murtha’s plan), and yes Iran would have been the short-term benefactor (but again this blame goes to Bush who took out one of Iran’s strongest enemies, Saddam.

Exactly why do you say, “short term.” What would Kerry have done that would have made this not short term? But at least you’re conceding this point (contradicting your earlier claims)

Using diplomacy (not the fake stuff Bush has been using these past six years) he would have gotten Iran to do better things.

LOL. Why on earth do you say this? Why would Iran concede anything? They have the upper hand. Diplomacy isn’t some magic that gets people to do things they don’t want to do with no benefit to them. What on earth would you offer them that would get them to do things not in their best interests.

Comments like this boggle the mind.

I’m pretty critical of Bush on diplomatic efforts prior to the war. However back channel diplomacy with Iran went on a long time. Bush let the EU try diplomacy over the nuclear issue. But what everyone neglects is that no one really has much to offer Iran that they want. Further via Putin in Russia, Iran can get most of what the west might offer them without needing to give up regional ambitions.

Whatever the case, Kerry would have had only poor choices in how to deal with Iraq and Iran, thanks to Bush

And in my opinion he would have chosen the worse choices. The Democrats nominated a loser. There were plenty of vastly superior choices out there – unfortunately the best the Democrats had to offer didn’t run.

Tell me, what do you think are the options now for the new president when he or she comes to power in 2009 about Iraq?

I think that by the time of the next election we’ll be able to start to pull out. So that’s a bit moot. Further I’d hope that in 2009 the decisions would be made on the basis of what’s going on in 2009 and not what’s going on in 2006.

However there are various suggestions of what to do. There’s the Baker plan (which I didn’t care for but was much better than what I feared) There’s this plan which I really like. I think the big error of Bush was in not making security the #1 focus from day one. That was the error in the initial planning and it continued. Rumsfeld’s plan was to start withdrawing within 3 months of the invasion and let Iraqis do everything. Clearly they aren’t capable. The “train the troops” idea was fine, but without first establishing security it was going to take too long. The big question is, given the facts on the ground, whether securing the country is possible anymore. I’m not sure it is, so I’d not endorse the plan without careful consideration.

While I don’t think a Republican at this stage could promote effectively the “surge” strategy I think a Democrat could. If a Democrat actually promoted this in the 2008 elections then I’d probably vote for them over a Republican I might like better.

I picked up Ann Coulter’s latest book last month, as a challenge to see if I could read it. I lasted 6 pages of reading, and then skimmed the last 30 pages. She’s got a seriously loose connection to facts–with my casual following of current events, I could disprove at least one point she was trying to make. Then there’s her “footnotes.” She uses an index, but she doesn’t cite sources of half of the things she should. Note, I didn’t even go into her polemics…Don’t get me started.

Clark,

I’d love that to be the case. However my prediction (which hasn’t been tested one way or the other yet) is that Democrats will use “oversight” primarily to score political points and not to actually engage in any practical oversight.

What do you consider “practical oversight?”

Umm, most Generals testifying before congress were asking for this over the last while. The majority view among Generals has been to increase, not decrease, troop levels. There have been a few promoting the opposite (and getting most of the press in some circles) but they certainly aren’t the ones testifying before Congress and don’t appear to be making up the majority.

Are you sure we are looking at the same congressional testimonies? The trouble with getting Generals to speak publicly is that they follow a chain of command, and if their commander in chief makes a decision, can they speak out against it? They do whatever the commander in chief says. It’s one of the negative aspects of military leadership. Which also makes it harder to replace inept civilian leaders, because the military brass is loathe to actually speak their minds.

Sorry, but if the elected President, the elected congress, and (more often than not) the appointed judicial branch decide the President’s actions are OK, that isn’t running America like an empire.

No, I mean that Republicans in Congress abrogated their Constitutional duty and mandate to be a check on the Executive, regardless of which party is in power. That, in effect, makes our government not the democratic republic that the Founders created.

To suggest that congress should have withheld money though is ridiculous.

Don’t go to the extreme, Clark. stay in the middle of this debate. Did I say anywhere that the only option was to cut funding? No! But the way you are tighter on your purse string is by holding accountable those who fail. Have Republicans done this? Not one whit!

I don’t think blaming Bush for surprising Israeli incompetence is fair.

no, but Israelis were quite surprised that they were given such a long leash in bombing Lebanon, that it probably contributed to their incompetence. They were so used to being reined in by an American government that they did not know what to do with the freedom they got from Bush in bombing Lebanon. (that’s just my theory, though). I don’t blame Bush for Israel’s incompetence, but I blame him for not following the wise footsteps of ALL previous American presidents who kept Israel on a tight leash militarily in the Middle East. They were smart. Bush is not.

LOL. Why on earth do you say this? Why would Iran concede anything? They have the upper hand. Diplomacy isn’t some magic that gets people to do things they don’t want to do with no benefit to them. What on earth would you offer them that would get them to do things not in their best interests.

We’ll never know, will we. As long as Bush is in power. Diplomacy is far more powerful than you, or Bush and his supporters, give it credit. I’m not a diplomat. I’m not skilled at getting another player to follow my requests even from a position of weakness. But there are those who can. Not Rice, and most certainly not Bush or Cheney. Like I said, we’ll never know as long as they are in power.

I think that by the time of the next election we’ll be able to start to pull out. So that’s a bit moot. Further I’d hope that in 2009 the decisions would be made on the basis of what’s going on in 2009 and not what’s going on in 2006.

Heh, that was the plan for 2004, and then 2006. Now that violence is far worse than in either of those two times, what suddenly will change for 2008? the “surge?” Hah!

The AEI strategy is still a very flawed strategy. The premise is correct, i.e. more troops, but alas, they don’t recommend enough. I believe that in order to effectively stop the violence in Iraq, you need at MINIMUM 500,000 troops. Flood the country. Leave no hiding place in the shadows. Is this politically feasible? nope. But that’s what needs to be done. Kagan’s plan will simply let Bush run out the clock on his administration, and then he can effectively blame the next president for not finishing the job, thereby getting away from being the sole one to be blamed for this whole debacle.

Furthermore, if you say that we will withdraw the troops in time for the 2008 elections, all Iraqis are going to do is simply wait. You think they’ll suddenly put off all their tribal grievances and listen to America? Why should they? They know America won’t stay permanently in their country, and if they do, they’ll just turn on us. You think it is bad now with only the Sunni insurgency? Just you wait until Shi’ites have had enough with us and turn on us. What do we do then?

While I don’t think a Republican at this stage could promote effectively the “surge” strategy I think a Democrat could. If a Democrat actually promoted this in the 2008 elections then I’d probably vote for them over a Republican I might like better.

No sensible Democrat (thus Lieberman is out) will touch the “surge” strategy with a ten foot pole. It is a folly. Americans don’t want it, the generals don’t want it, and the Iraqis don’t want it. McCain will lose the 2008 election because he has tied himself to the surge. He strongly believes in it (and this morning on the Today show said that if he loses because of it, so be it, that’s what he believes). But alas, it is a foolish plan.

remember the last “surge?” In August 2006, the military shifted several thousand soldiers from the Anbar province into Baghdad in an operation called Together Forward. It was an abject failure. Not only did it not stop the violence, but violence increased by like 20%.

This surge is supposed to be an all out attack on the Mahdi Army, a Shi’ite militia. So now we turn on the Shi’ites. What good do you think that will do? Seriously.

DKL,
The article meant nothing to me. In my world Vietnam wouldn’t have been invaded in the first place.

Clark,
Allright. That’s good then. I didn’t vote for Kerry either. In order to get new wine, we need new wine containers. These old Republican and Democrat containers will just keep giving us more of the same.

Clark,

What did Americans then know about what was happening at the Battle of the Bulge?

Perhaps you didn’t read my post fully. I said this too:

And of course Americans knew about the Battle of the Bulge. If you go to New York Times website and do a search in their archive (which looks back all the way to the 1850s), you’ll find articles, front page articles, detailing the Battle of the Bulge, at the same time that these public opinion polls were taken showing 70% support of Roosevelt and the war effort.

Wow Dan, you cracked a joke. At my expense, but at least you cracked a joke.

Sherpa,

has it really been that long since you’ve seen me crack a joke?

Once again Dan you’re sidestepping the issue. What did they know. You’re implication is that the NYT in the time in question conveyed information equivalent to what we now know about Iraq (as opposed to say how folks felt in 2004)

As to the other point, you’re missing my perspective. While I’m ideologically Republican I think the Republican leadership are horrible. I just think that about the Democrats as well. And I’m not going by just talking points. I’m going by what Democrats do. As I’ve said every prediction about Democrats has been fulfilled thus far. Feel optimistic if you want. I think you’ll be disappointed (or more likely merely arguing Republicans are worse).

I’m not terribly sad Republicans are out of power in the house and Senate given what a job they did. I think the only way for good Republicans to take back the party is for this to happen. Although I certainly wasn’t at all happy that the same usual suspects ended up back in the Republican congressional leadership. It was the worst thing they could do.

But anyone who thinks the Democrats are going to usher in an era of less bickering, less partisanship, more ethics, and more competence are deluding themselves. (IMO)

Note that while I like the Kagan plan, I don’t think 20,000 troops is enough. I believe I’ve been pretty consistently asking for half a million, more on par with Desert Storm. Ditto with most neo-cons since before the war.

Dan, if you think those NYT articles are on par with all the negative news about Iraq and the photos of Iraqi dead and American dead then it’s kind of pointless to continue. It’s not on par in the least.

Dan, you’re sidestepping the issue and like many Democrats setting up a strawman. What conservatives are critical of in the media isn’t the reporting of the raw facts but the way and manner in which they are reported along with the side stories setting the context of events. To deny that the US military in WWII held strict control over such things (with the complicity of the media) and that the media helped with extensive government propaganda is simply to bury ones head under the sand. Even a superficial reading of the NYTs from 1943 and the NYTs from 2006 ought to establish the difference.

Clark,

Was the military telling the media wrong numbers about the number dead or wounded as they have done today? Is there a disconnect with the events on the ground when facts were put together after the war? No. While obviously the media back then did not have access to the soldiers on the field, nor to the locals (though I’m sure the French had no complaints about the US coming in to take back control from the Germans), there again was not a disconnect between the events on the ground and what the government was saying, as much as the government had control of the media. I haven’t denied that the military held strict control of the media, but I have claimed that they presented an honest story, unlike today.

I’d love to see a research comparison done between media coverage now and then. I bet they will show that even though the military had strict control over what the media printed, the military was more honest with the media and the public back home, whereas today, even though the media has more access to events on the ground, the military is participating more in a propaganda attempt rather than telling the facts as they are. Note for example the unfortunate case of Pat Tillman. Today’s military needed a hero to worship. What better hero than the star football player turned warrior. He dies. He’s killed by his buddies in friendly fire, but the media didn’t care. They attempted instead to paint him as a hero killed by the enemy in an ambush. What the hell was the military thinking?

Not sure I agree it was painless/quick