Replies

“Badeye, I only flagged you because I thought you might enjoy the debate. Neither you nor OPie were being criticized. I think you’ve hung around with those Bikers until it’s made you a little paranoid. Anyway, FRegards.”

Thanks for the explanation, I didn’t insult anyone on this topic in my comments, so it was curious to see that posted my way here.

I believe removing Saddam and Son’s was the correct thing to do post 9/11. I also believe the administration lost its focus in Iraq upon winning the 04 election cycle, and played ‘not to lose’ til after the 06 election cycle ass kicking.

Bottom line is ‘we are here’. You can argue if it was the correct decision or not til the cows come home, it doesn’t change the fact ‘we are here’ and cannot afford to lose this fight.

If we cut and run now, we will get hit again here at home. It will embolden those that killed us by the thousands on a crisp fall day six years ago.

I suspect you realize it as well as I do.

Bottom line is ‘we are here’. You can argue if it was the correct decision or not til the cows come home, it doesn’t change the fact ‘we are here’ and cannot afford to lose this fight.

Conventional wisdom. Certainly, the prevailing thought on the region. I don't necessarily agree.

If we cut and run now, we will get hit again here at home. It will embolden those that killed us by the thousands on a crisp fall day six years ago.

Much like betting on Fear Of Pelosi to hold Congress in '06 or the likely GOP error of relying on Fear Of Hillary to hold the White House in '08, I think this line of thinking has serious flaws.

There are far more devious ways to insure that Iraq doesn't pose a danger to us. And we could destabilize Syria at the same time. Of course, fully arming all sides and maintaining an equal balance of power in a civil war would seem cruel to some folks. Alternatively, we could partition it, heavily garrisoning the Kurdish north. Cynical as this would be, it would not threaten our oil supply.

At some point, the Bush strategy may actually work. It would a Good Thing even. But that is not our central policy goal, at least, one would hope we haven't fallen into the hands of Wilsonian utopians (God help us). I'll give Bush some more time to make it work but I hold little hope for its longterm success. The effort to succeed would be far more comparable to that which was required to make Japan a western country. We're talking full occupation for at least two generations, probably longer, given how barbaric Islam's influence truly is (see Churchill on this matter). I don't think we're that committed to Iraq.

It is a genuine error to believe that the State Department and the foreign policy community hold any particular regard for human rights or democracy. They've said so repeatedly for decades for anyone who pays attention to them. Those goals are harmless and even charming to promote provided they do not interfere with what is known as "the national interest" in CFR circles.