Military tactical convention calls for massing forces. We are diluting forces in Iraq by diverting military force to civilian policing and "nation building". Helprin is not so much saying that "nation building is bad", as he is stating, quite accurately in my military opinion, that nation building is detrimental to winning the war. It dulls the "tip" of our spear. Quite obviously, we do not have the men (and women) under arms to sustain the tempo of operations now ongoing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The "nation building" in Iraq is bleeding us to death, economically, militarily, and in Bush's case, politically. If the USA can better accomplish our mission with expenditures of fewer casualties and less national treasure by removing our troops from the midst of warring factions, and supporting those factions who will support our interests, then we ought to persue that strategy. How 'bout leaving the "nation building" to the Iraqi's, and mass our forces where they can be most effectively employed, be it Saudi Arabian bases, Iraqi bases, or new U.S. bases in Syria, Lebanon, and Iran. I don't care, as long as we win the war, and the body bags no longer carry American or coalition bodies.
On the other hand, the Democrat's partisanship have made it impossible for Bush to persue any other approach. Bush cannot propose a WWII type of war effort, doubling the size of the sitting U.S. Armed forces, ceasing "nation building", or expanding the war to countries who are NOW providing the RPG's, AK's, mortars, and other supplies to the Muslim "insurgents". In my opinion, from the Democrat's perspective, every dead American soldier is worth a half-dozen or so votes for Kerry. The Dem's love dead American military personnel; they always have since I've been..."of age" (1970's).
That's the main area where I differ with Helprin. He's a bit tough on the one guy who took action, i.e. Bush, holding Democrat and Republican "partisanship" to be a equal thing. It's moral relativism. The Democrats have been deceptive, unpatriotic, and even treasonous in their partisanship; the GOP have been at most, cowardly in the face of their enemy, which is as much the Democrats as Al Queda, i.e. both groups have similar goals in common, i.e. tearing down Bush to punish American for pursuing war against the terrorists and their sponsors. Both Kerry Democrats and Al Queda hope that dead American soldiers will eventually result in a change of government in the U.S., and then total capitulation of U.S. forces to the Arab-Muslim nationalists.
SFS
...In the Middle East, our original purpose, since perverted by carelessness of estimation, was self-defense. To return to it would take advantage of the facts that the countries in the area do not have to be democracies before we require of them that they refrain from attacking us; that a regime with a firm hold upon a nation has much at stake and can be coerced to eradicate the terrorist apparatus within its frontiers; and that the ideal instrument for this is a remounted and properly supported U.S. military, released from nation building and counterinsurgency, its ability to make war, when called upon, nonpareil.
The Kurds and Shia of Iraq could within days assert control in their areas. We already have ceded part of Sunni Iraq: What remains is to pick a strongman, see him along, arrange a federation, hope for the best, remount the army, and retire, with or without Saudi permission, to the Saudi bases roughly equidistant to Damascus, Baghdad, and Riyadh. There, protected by the desert, with modern infrastructure, and our backs to the sea, which is our metier, we would command the center of gravity of the Middle East, and with the ability to strike hard, fast and at will, could enforce responsible behavior upon regimes that have been the citadel of our enemies...