That would be me.
I understood quite well from the beginning that what President Bush was attempting to do was nothing short of Grand Strategy, that he was not, as Foggy Bottom has advocated for several generations, content with the staus quo in the Arab World, but saw that the only breakthrough would be one of enormous risk, that of helping to nurture, as we did in Japan, a free and democratic Iraq which would stand as a model in the Arab world.
I am mature enough and steady-willed enough to allow some time for this venture to mature. The fact that the Kurds have a thriving democracy in their enclave in the north, gives me reason to hope. The fact that the Iraqis have generally rejected the theocrats who have stood for election in the numerous municipal elections that have already taken place, also gives me hope.
Rome wasn't built in a day, as they say. What President Bush is risking here is of the same order that President Reagan risked, that a region of the world can break out of tyranny and move toward freedom. It's too early to say whether this risk will succeed or fail. But I'd rather give this "strategery" a chance than stick with the old failed policies of the Arabists at Foggy Bottom who just live for stability.
I was not one who was "hoaxed" by this war. Perhaps you were.
Are you saying, then, that George W. Bush was lying in 2000 when he -- as a presidential candidate -- would not engage in silly attempts at "nation-building?"
What a wonderful post your #856 was to read first thing after I got into FR this morning. I'm always aware of the fact that many more pairs of eyes read threads than actively respond on them. When someone as articulate and well-reasoned as you decides to join the debate, it means a great deal.