Centerfield

So Rick, are you just tossing in the towel on Iraq?

If not, do you think Bush will be viewed by history as a "weak captain"if Iraq is a democracy in 50 years?

I think suggesting we were wrong to go into Iraq is different from saying we should leave. The situation does pivot dramatically once you've made that initial decision and gone ahead to overthrow the regime.

We pull out, and very bad things most likely will happen.

We stay in, and they might happen.

Either way, it's possible Iraq will be a democracy in 50 years. That's too long a timeframe to judge current policy (it's possible Iraq would be a democracy in 50 years even if we hadn't overthrown Saddam).

The question is, say, 10 to 20 years. If Iraq remains stable during that timeframe, that's an extraordinary result, and Bush's policy will be viewed favorably historically. If we see a civil war, or a revolution that evicts the Americans, it will be seen as a failure.

I would also observe that we underestimate sometimes just how powerful our country is and the unique range of resources available to us to make policies work. We have the most economic, diplomatic, and military power in the world -- by far in all categories. We could make a bad policy work, if implemented skillfully.

The situation going bad in Iraq -- if, indeed it is -- means we're doing something wrong ... bad policy, bad implementation, or both.

No towel.

I want to replace the captain, and have the new captain chart a course toward a safe harbor.

I see the odds of democracy taking root in Iraq as less than 50%. That's because Islamism seems to be much more appealing. So setting democracy as the goal seems to be setting ourselves up for failure.

The other Arab countries are threatened by democracy. We could probably get MORE cooperation from them if we didn't have such a radical agenda.

We need a stable, non-hostile Iraq. The President is leading a rash crusade that is likely to fail. The weakness I see in this is a weakness in discernment.

I'm not sure that I really buy the idea that it was Bush getting conservative agenda stuff thru the GOP-controlled House and Senate. He openly opposed McCain-Feingold and then signed it when it got to his desk. He hasn't vetoed anything. It seems to me that the stuff that was rammed thru Congress prior to 9/11 had more to do with the GOP machine than it did Bush. Congress is where the real power players in the GOP are entrenched. He signs whatever they pass.

By the way, the moderate Republican blogger Tacitus has a mea culpa too -- and maybe the best written and reasoned of the bunch. Here's a piece:

But it does mean that, for the sake of our country, we on the pro-war side had best be right.

Well. We weren't -- or at least, it seems we weren't now, but history is a long-term thing -- but not for the reasons I thought we might be. I truly never expected that the execution of the occupation would be this poor. It's salvageable yet, albeit via measures that I'm not sure the leadership will endorse, but the bottom line remains that had I had a crystal ball back in early '03, and seen this, I'd probably not have supported this war.

But all this is, in a sense, personal posturing for posterity. We're there, we're in, and what remains is to win the thing, and decisively. Retroactive nonsupport does not imply present-day loss of nerve; similarly, just because cause X produced effect Y, it does not follow that cause Y will always result. The Iraqi debacle does not discredit the reverse-domino notion; it does not discredit the idea of societal change via military force; and it does not discredit the notion of unilateral American action. It only discredits the idea of doing these things badly. Keep that in mind.

moderate Republican blogger Tacitus

Moderate is not equvalent to reasonable. Tacitus himself will readily admit he is far to the right.

It seems people are less concerned about Iraq and more concerned about their own vanity and correctness. Pride will not bring our soldiers home and will not heal 30+ years of tyranny...I am sick and tired of what has become nothing more than bloggers' pride and rats leaving a sinking ship (ie liberal hawks) instead of kvetching about the situation, come up with a plan or talk about something else. Your internet competition is not bringing Johnny home nor peace to Mehmet.

George Bush is a likeable ex-frat guy who they put in the Presidency. The key reason he made it in there is that he was not Al Gore. And, was there not a general expectancy that

Bush II would act closer to the philosphy of BushI?
Bush lacks the competence or the tested mettle to be in charge of this country. Cheney and crew are running the plutocracy. These Chicken-Hawks are blowing up countries and people with shock and awe. They're going after terrorism ( another ISM) rather than Bin Laden and his crew.

Further, we cannot afford military adventures around the world and being uncle to the world. These guys have cost the American people too dearly and in too many ways to elaborate upon right now. Corporations are profiting though. They are exposing us to all kinds of terrorist acts here at home. Anyone else for closing the borders to-- as well as clearing out cells here?

Janus

The question is, say, 10 to 20 years. If Iraq remains stable during that timeframe, that's an extraordinary result, and Bush's policy will be viewed favorably historically. If we see a civil war, or a revolution that evicts the Americans, it will be seen as a failure.

I agree. I find the following statement from tacitus notworhty, too:

but the bottom line remains that had I had a crystal ball back in early '03, and seen this, I'd probably not have supported this war.

That's why I was against invading Iraq, because I didn't think we could successfully install a democracy, that it would be difficult and dicey like all other such efforts have been, and that the American public's will to do such a thing was not strong enough.

I am however a little more reluctant to attribute such failures that have so far occurred as simply due to ineptitude instead of due to difficulty.

It's such a difficult task that even given perfect execution, the outcome would still be in substantial doubt. And to those who say that this is precisely the point that suggests invading was the wrong course, well as I said, I agree. But only to a point. I am qualified in my criticism of the course the administration took precisely because I myself was not sanguine about the prospects for continued domestic security without some bold policy changes beyond our own borders. Letting overseas infections fester wasn't an option in my view.

map quest

Thanks for the Wonderfull informationen!!
It was exactly what I was looking for!!

Play Craps

Plastic Bins and Plastic Boxes

Storage Bins

Stacking Bins

Tote Boxes