Replies

You asked a series of questions, and even though the questions are rhetorical, and I can't speak for the President, but here's my take:

"Is the State Dept really serving our interests as best as possible?"

The State Dept. is full of Clinton appointees who have used every opportunity to undermine the Administration.

"Is the CIA on my side or are they out to get me and do they have a fundamentally different worldview when it comes to terrorism and Jihad?"

The CIA--when it isn't being glaringly incompetent executing its charter--is using every opportunity to undermine the Administration. And yes, they have a world-view, which is predicated on the CIA maintaining its independence, influence, and bureaucratic clout.

"Was letting the Mahdi Army off the hook in Najaf the right call?"

Yes, it was a bad call--Sadr and his men should have blown to the winds.

Was letting Saddam and his top guys live and extending this trial for 3 years the right move?

Saddam should have been squeezed dry for information, then thrown into a basement room filled with the wives of his (now-deceased) political opponents.

"Are there enough troops to carry out the strategy I set?"

Can't speak to manpower levels--if the Generals on the ground need more men, then they should say so.

"Have we dealt with Iran and Syria in the right manner?"

Can't speak to Iran and Syria--a great deal is going on that we--the public--can't possibly know.

"Is the al--Maliki govt reliable? or are they in Tehran's pocket?"

The jury's still out on Maliki and his government--but a good general rule is that adherents of Islam can never be trusted, under any circumstances. Trust their instinct for self-preservation, and remember that the Iranians are most emphatically not Arabs. The Iraqis, Shia and Sunni alike, loathe the Persians even more than they loathe one another.

"Is Maliki on my side?"

See above.

"Was an immediate transition to democracy the right approach?"

Yes, the rapid transition to an electoral political model was the right thing to do. For one thing, the American public would not abide the establishment of a 'transitional' authoritarian government. 'Transitional' governments of that type have a way of becoming permanent fixtures.

"Did we underestimate the depth of sunni-shiite violence and hatreds and have we adapted to it effectively?"

Yes, we underestimated the animosity between Shia and Sunni--who could fully know the hatred these two groups feel for each other? Even the Irish at their fratricidal worst never displayed this kind of socio-suicidal eagerness. But yes, we have been dealing with it. An Army buddy of mine is a retired Sergeant Major with enormous experience in the Middle East, Iraq particularly. According to him, we're working wonders, but it's going to take time.

But here's the rub: it is ultimately Iraqis themselves need to pull this off. We can take them to the well--even build the well--but we can't make them drink.

That's my take on things, anyway.

I agree mostly. My point is that to ask these questions and wonder if the the WH has answered them correctly deosn't make one a liberal appeaser.

And if your answers about State and CIA are correct, and Bush hasn't really done anything to rectify the situation, it's certainly acceptable to call him on it. Bush can fire guys from CIA, he can put new people in, get rid of the old guard. Same at State. He could have canned all the Clinton appointees like Tenet at CIA and Clinton people at State. He hasn't. And he's paying the consequences with the whole Wilson/Libby fiasco, all the leaks to the NYT and the WAPO on the renditions and the interrogations and the secret prosons every other thing the media's done to undermine the war.

Saying Bush made a mistake with Sadr and the Mahdi Army doesn't make one a John Murtha cut and runner, it just means one is trying to recognize problems and seek solutions that will work

I disagree with you about immediate democracy. Transitional authoritarian govts worked out fairly well in the ROK, Taiwan, Phillipines, Singapore and elsewhere. I think it was more crucial to establish order and security before plowing into democracy, at least on the national level. Maybe set up some local councils and stuff like that, but you needed to deal with the violence before yo could go ahead with democracy.

But simply asking these questions or criticizing Bush for certain choices or decisions doesn't mean you still support the mission. It just means you want to win and you want to make the choices taht will best achieve that objective.