Neocons May Get the Last Laugh

Bump to everything you've said, though I went over to Bush's side when the UN said no to Iraq intervention. It was a double-edged sword for me. I don't like us using the army for nationbuilding, I don't like the idea that other countries might preemptively strike us, I don't like the big-government mentality that using the military for nationbuilding brings, but I'd prefer to have an interventionist U.S. government to a U.S. government that does what the UN said, and I'd prefer to have an interventionist U.S. government to seeing DC glowing in the dark.

actually, yes I do.
and that is increasingly puzzling, unless it is taken as a symptom of the true malady afflicting the Left'd grass-roots: they ARE "true believers" in a cult to which facts are alien and insignificant.

You have apparently known very few if any expatriots from Iraq or Iran.

No, but I have known my share of Iranian, Saudi Arabian, and Lebanese citizens, Muslims all of them. I can tell you from that experience it will take a lot more that an optimistic outlook and best wishes to overcome what the Imams and the Ayatollahs have spent over a thousand years pounding into the culture and society of these people.

It's definitely too early to be self-congratulatory, and nobody should kid themselves into thinking that the transformation is going to be complete overnight. However, it's not a matter of whether or not it's going to happen, it's just a matter of when.

Excellent point... I'd like to remind them that from the Declaration of Independence to the ratification of the Constitution in the US took 11 years...

And they're still demanding a "timetable" for us to withdraw from Iraq. Idiots!

Mark

I have to make an observation about Liberals which may just be a quirk of the way I understand people.

All the time growing up, I lived in a neighborhood which was 'colorful'. I believe that is the correct term, and you must know what I mean. It was borderline ghetto. It is now GHETTO. It was ethnic and black and everything else in between. Hard working factory types and real down and outers. Anyway, kids from our neighborhood are either doing hard time or are the presidents of major universities. We learned that the whole world was not made up of homes with white picket fences and 'Sunday go to meet'n' types. My brother and his buddies could do calculus in their heads, (brother has 142 IQ) but they also shot hoops with kids who carried knives and cut school at will. Everyone growing up there became, by association, totally street smart in addition to whatever else they ended up learning on their way in life.

What I am saying is that I have never in my life met ANY Liberals who comprehend what this other side of life in America is. Yet Liberals perpetually espouse the merits of that element. There are none. I know.

"intervention. It was a double-edged sword for me. I don't like us using the army for nation building, I don't like the idea that other countries might preemptively strike us, I don't like the big-government mentality that using the military for nation building brings, "

Glad you came over.

However, unlike you I never saw this as nation building...I've always seen this as just one battle in the WOT.

I've argued this point vehemently over the bast three years...Iraq was all about securing stability in the Middle East. It was a way of changing the status quo, giving us political and military leverage in an area of the world ruled by fascist thugs.

Securing Iraq, effectively surrounded and isolated Iran. Lebanon was/is the obvious next piece in the puzzle; isolating Syria is paramount to securing a real peace between the Israelis and the PA.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt are now being pushed to chose a side...they will chose the opening up of their countries to more freedom to secure their power.

Attacking Saudi Arabia as a response to 9/11, as some called for, was never an option. It would have been fool hearty with little in the way of positives. Putting the worlds leading oil supplier in peril would have caused economic catastrophes throughout the world.

Saudi Arabia, and Iran, must transition to a more open form of government in a more peaceful manner if we wish to avoid economic disasters down the road.

Iraq was, and always has been, the front-line in the WOT. It sits in the cross of the region and has resources by which its newly formed government can take advantage of when rebuilding and fighting terror. It must succeed if the Middle East is to reform itself.

IMHO

Unlike you I never saw this as nation building...I've always seen this as just one battle in the WOT.

---Well, I figured we'd win this battle. But the Marshall Plan cost a pretty penny. And it didn't do the job--the Cold War buildup did the economic heavy lifting needed to stabilize Germany and the decimated European economies. We have a long way to go with the WOT, and since we're 'rebuilding' already penny-ante economies in Afghanistan and Iraq, we're going to invest a ton into making their world not-so-third. And we haven't even gotten to Syria or Iran yet.

I've argued this point vehemently over the bast three years...Iraq was all about securing stability in the Middle East. It was a way of changing the status quo, giving us political and military leverage in an area of the world ruled by fascist thugs.

---Sure, but after we get rid of the thugs, we have to build up a stable option. The military isn't built for that. And government building anything costs a ton. Better to nuke them and instill fear. I'm only half-kidding.

Securing Iraq, effectively surrounded and isolated Iran. Lebanon was/is the obvious next piece in the puzzle; isolating Syria is paramount to securing a real peace between the Israelis and the PA.

---Well, I don't really care about that latter part. I'd like to see the Holy Land someday, but I don't care who runs it as long as they keep the hotels clean and the beggars off me. I just want America to be secure, not forced to stay somewhere to avoid looking over its collective shoulder. We should be using our military outside the U.S. not one second longer than we have to. And we should have bombed Iran red-hot already. In my less generous moments, I advocated doing the same to Saddam. I wouldn't give a single American soldier's life for ten thousand Iraqis. But I'd sacrifice an army full of `em to protect America from terrorism.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt are now being pushed to chose a side...they will chose the opening up of their countries to more freedom to secure their power.

---No argument, the side effects have been nice. But it's still a big budget item. Too bad we can't bill France for it.

Attacking Saudi Arabia as a response to 9/11, as some called for, was never an option. It would have been fool hearty with little in the way of positives. Putting the worlds leading oil supplier in peril would have caused economic catastrophes throughout the world.

---Nah, in some ways I was for that, but I just figured that we wouldn't do it because we'd have every Muslim everywhere agin' us. As it stands, they aren't 100% sure yet. We do need to work on oil dependency, but I don't see how government can do it outside of subsidizing renewable energy, and government always screws up.

Saudi Arabia, and Iran, must transition to a more open form of government in a more peaceful manner if we wish to avoid economic disasters down the road.

---Fat chance. We're encouraging revolution. Some of it will be bloody. Part of me hopes it will be in both those places, just because the Saudi royal family and the Iranian ayatollahs are such bastards.

Iraq was, and always has been, the front-line in the WOT. It sits in the cross of the region and has resources by which its newly formed government can take advantage of when rebuilding and fighting terror. It must succeed if the Middle East is to reform itself.

---No argument on that BUMP.

"I just want America to be secure..."

So do I, I'd rather we spend money rather than lives doing so.

Don't gloss over how important peace between the PA and Israel is. That conflict is, and has been for decades, used by the ruling tyrants in the Middle East to keep the masses attention focused elsewhere. Israel has been the whipping boy and fall guy for the region.

The PA will never be able to successfully address the terrorists within their midst without ending support from the other countries around them, Syria in particular. Lebanon has been used by Syria as a staging ground for terrorist training and attacks on Israel. Once Lebanon is free, Syria will be under a microscope, their covert support of terrorist groups will no longer be under the covers when attacks are launched from Syria itself (to a much greater degree than they are today).

You will never have real stability in that region until a semblance of peace is fostered between Israel and the PA. You will never have true security in this country unless stability is found in that region. Thus, our security is very much dependent upon how stable that region is. The relations between Israel and the PA is just a reflection or barometer of that security...IMHO

That conflict is, and has been for decades, used by the ruling tyrants in the Middle East to keep the masses attention focused elsewhere. Israel has been the whipping boy and fall guy for the region.

That's a good point, but we continue to prop up BOTH sides of the conflict for reasons I don't understand. If peace is the ultimate goal, propping up either side would seem to me a mistake. Better to throw the two of them in the same hole and make them work together to get out, instead of giving them both a pile of cash and telling them to settle between themselves who gets the dough. Our foreign policy as regards the PA/Israeli conflict has no stick, and you can take that in either of two ways.

You will never have true security in this country unless stability is found in that region. Thus, our security is very much dependent upon how stable that region is. The relations between Israel and the PA is just a reflection or barometer of that security...IMHO

Actually, here we part ways. I don't think our security is dependent at all on how stable that region is. I think our security is dependent upon how strong our defense is, and how self-sufficient we are as a country. The more intertwined and reliant our country is on these others, the less likely we are to EVER get real national security. We will instead have the security of a slave, as we do now, confident that we'll get our next barrel of crude if only we keep the right distance from the master.

Don't you all know it's a damned quagmire!

"We will instead have the security of a slave, as we do now, confident that we'll get our next barrel of crude if only we keep the right distance from the master...."

On this point I agree. Our dependency, and the west in general's dependency, will always temper any of our responses to those countries having such resources.

It is something that most don't understand when they start demanding that we "bomb Saudi Arabia" or "bomb Iran". Such an act would cause crude to shoot up to $80 to $90 a barrel at the very least...it would cause chaos in the world economies.

That is why I believe we will not, unless left with no other choice, invade or lash out at Iran or Saudi Arabia. We instead will work hard to covertly undermine the sitting tyrants who rule those two countries. That is why it is important to have other surrounding countries become more free in their abilities to choose their leaders. It will put a great strain upon their (Iran and the Saudi's) leaders to change.

We shouldn't lose perspective here; although the winds of change are in the air, regional change will take years, if not decades to complete. We are only seeing the beginning, many unforeseen setbacks will occur, but in the end they will not be able to stem the tide that is rising....Amazing and historical times are upon us, the next 10 years will shape the 100 there after....