If you want to bookmark his articles discussed at FR: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/k-victordavishanson/browse
His NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
Ok, I don't know the region and this may be a silly thought. However, the Kurds have long sought independence. Always, always this is said to be unacceptable to Turkey, Iraq, and Iran for the same reasons that Polish independence was, prior to 1918, unacceptable to Germany, Austria, and Russia. But we do not, at the moment, particularly care what Iran thinks, and partition may be the best option for Iraq. That leaves Turkey.
So: have the Turks a price? Or alternatively, what about a Kurdish autonomous region within Turkey? The Kurds would presumably want some sort of guarantees that the Turks would behave themselves, but this should be possible to arrange; this is not the 16th century anymore, at least in Turkey. So again: have the Kurds a price?
We are reminded daily not of the birth of the first consensual government in the history of the Arab world, but only that nine months after the military defeat of the Baathists, there is still resistance to the American reconstruction; and that the number of American soldiers, killed in major combat operations and afterward, has now surpassed 500.
Things in the Middle East are hard precisely because the stakes there are gargantuan. But so are the rewards: The sanctuaries and patrons of murderers, suicide bombers, and terrorists are shrinking with the destruction of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. Autocracies like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria are terrified of consensual government in Iraq precisely because they are aware of its implications for their own deprived citizens.
Meanwhile millions from Libya and Pakistan to North Korea and Iran watch intently. They wonder whether this new United States is about to run out of gas and return to the old appeasement of the last twenty years, [... or] is this new and often unpredictable United States going to completely change the rules of engagement, to prevent the conditions that would lead to another September 11?
This is a major complaint of mine as well. The lack of eloquence, indeed the ongoing inarticulateness, in this administration is a critical flaw and a failure of leadership. Leaders must articulate the goals of the mission. It is a core function of the job. GWB, with certain exceptions in major policy addresses, just doesn't seem to have it in him to articulate his message day in and day out.
I'm displaying my flag at home today because of this sentance.
Needed repeating....
redrock