Thanks.
Because it was so good I will reply and say that I feel that trying to build a modern nation was a long shot gamble. It may pay off as I was saying it looks better then I thought. It would certainly be better of if we could.
Keep in mind, though, that it does not have to be perfect. It just needs to be good enough.
The Ottoman Empire was a mess until Mustafa Kemal Ataturk turned it into a secular and relatively modern state that has been battling Islamist nut cases since the 1920's.
Nasser's Egypt was a highly radical nation but Egypt is now very well behaved.
But, when you consider the danger of being dragged into an unpopular war or more likely what is perceived as a war. It could be extremely dangerous. We have given the left a club to beat us over the head with.
And there are two issues right there.
Again, back to strategic consideration. Because the Persian Gulf holds the oil valves to Western Civilization it is a national vital interest of the highest magnitude. The surrender of the Persian Gulf region to fanatics is simply not a viable option no matter what the cost. We either succeed in Iraq or we go back to trying to keep the lid on the region from Saudi bases but, one way or the other, we cannot leave.
The second issue is that, in my opinion, the greatest weakness that Bush has is his failure to be a good communicator that rallies the Home Front.
Successful war leaders need to have proper strategic vision, military competence (or at least know when to let Generals do their jobs without amateur meddling), tenacity and be inspirational to the warring nation.
Napoleon had great military competence, tenacity and was highly inspirational but failed by making idiotic strategic choices.
Hitler had great tenacity and was highly inspirational but failed by making the same idiotic strategic choice that Napoleon made and compounding it by declaring war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor and by micro-managing his Generals.
Lincoln was militarily mediocre (MacClellan, Hooker, Pope, Burnsides) but made up for it by his tenacity, clear strategic goals and his inspirational nature.
Jimmy Carter was a total failure in all four departments.
Bill Clinton failed in tenacity and in strategic vision. But, we must admit, Clinton was a Great Communicator or, if you prefer, a Great Bullshitter which can be just as inspirational.
Bush has clear strategic goals, allows his Generals to do their job and has great tenacity. However, he fails in being a Great Communicator or even being a Adequate Communicator whether the subject is explaining the strategic imperatives of Iraq or even the Democrat failures of Hurricane Katrina to the American people.
As a result, he has allowed the liberal news media and the Democrats to brand the word "FAILURE" right on his forehead without a fight.
By contrast, Bill Clinton had his "War Room" that agrressively attacked any negative story within one news cycle.
Bush's flaw is compounded by the fact that the liberal news media in 21st Century America is almost as dedicated to undermining the war morale of the American Home Front as was Goebbels' Ministry of Propaganda.
I sincerely hope that it works out still. however. But, I think one lesson before we take on something like this again is that we really have to do something about the stinking lieing MSM.
In Iraq and in any future U.S. war under a Republican President, it must be assumed that the liberal news media will act as a force multiplier for our enemies by actively and aggressively trying to undermine the morale of the American Home Front.
That needs to be taken into consideration just as seriously as any other aspect of war planning.