Posted on 11/24/2006 1:13:19 PM PST by neverdem
"Our own successful three-week war, but their failed three-year peace."
Such a self-serving disclaimer might best sum up the change of heart of several neoconservative former supporters of the Iraq war - at least according to interviews that appear in the current issues of Vanity Fair and the New Yorker magazines.
Some of these pundits and policy gurus now having second and third thoughts had called for the American ouster of Saddam Hussein as early as 1998. These days, apparently in hindsight, they question whether the present plagued occupation even justified the effective three-week war of 2003.
Americans themselves have made the same dramatic about-face. They once approved of the war by a 70 percent majority. Three years later, they think it was a mistake by almost the same wide margin. Like the pundits, the public follows the pulse of the battlefield - which now seems to be reported solely as a story of improvised explosive devices and sectarian suicide bombing.
But forget that "gotcha" Beltway buzz. Instead, let's re-examine the now-orphaned policy of bringing democracy to the Middle East - not the fickle parents who abandoned it. How, in other words, did we get to Iraq?
Taking out Saddam Hussein was not dreamed up - as is sometimes alleged - by sneaky supporters of Israel. Nor did oil-hungry CEOs or Halliburton puppeteers pull strings in the shadows to get us in. And the go-ahead wasn't given merely on the strength of trumped-up fears of weapons of mass destruction: The U.S. Congress authorized the war on 23 diverse counts, from Iraq's violation of the 1991 armistice to its record of giving both money and sanctuary to terrorists.
George W. Bush resolved to democratize Iraq also as a way to confront three grim facts of our recent past.
First, the United...
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Bump!
ping
.
Vietnam =
Before
http://www.lzxray.com/guyer_set1.htm
After
http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1308949/posts
.
Let me know if you want in or out.
Links: FR Index of his articles: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson
His website: http://victorhanson.com/
NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
New Link! http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/
Our lamestream media started calling the War on Terror a "quagmire" within days of the invasion of Afghanistan. They have never let up since, especially when Iraq was added.
Sheeple have been spoon fed slanted reports of doom and gloom every day and it continues.
You might consider a re-read.
On one level, that shouldn't matter. If a war is necessary, then it shouldn't matter if we run into setbacks. So, why the growing discontent? Two reasons.
First is the camp that never really felt that Iraq was necessary, but went along with the idea when they thought it was expedient, and wouldn't take long. Their reasons are many, but at the end of the day, they were fairweather friends who believed that the war was going to go as smoothly as advertised.
Second is the camp that feels that the post invasion planning was bungled, and that we should stick to our stated reasons for invading and be done with nation building. They still think that overthrowing Saddam had to happen, and that the world is a better place for us going into Iraq. Now that we've made our point, it's time for us to leave them to their own devices.
The main reason that we're facing these two groups is because of the ever changing war in Iraq. This is, by some accounts, the third battle for Iraq since 2003. The first being the invasion, the second being the war on AQI, the third being the sectarian struggle. The above groups feel justified in jumping ship, because they feel like they were taken in a 'bait and switch' play. "We signed on to take out Saddam and WMDs (which we didn't find, incidentally), and now we're stuck nation building a nation that doesn't want to stand up for itself?"
A complicated problem, to be sure.
The only war we're losing is the propaganda war at home.
Maybe instead of mindlessly echoing the latest headline people on OUR side might finally grow a spine and start telling the Junk Media what totally ignorant idiots they all are on Iraq.
We have, and (suprise!) they don't listen.
Re-read?
Besides, why read when you can SHOUT!?
I think that it is rather revealing that those who have been to Iraq/Afghanistan and been involved in OIF/OEF are much more positive about going there and being there than are those detractors who have not spent significant time there.
Dr. Hanson isn't "fixating" on what the Iraqis are doing, or not doing.
Instead, he is fixating on what is happening in the U.S.
Then they weren't paying attention to what the President said, and (one of) the underlying causes of 9-11, & the fact that in every war plan the enemy gets a vote.
Second is the camp that feels that the post invasion planning was bungled, and that we should stick to our stated reasons for invading and be done with nation building.
They still think that overthrowing Saddam had to happen, and that the world is a better place for us going into Iraq. Now that we've made our point, it's time for us to leave them to their own devices.
"Be done with Nation Building" then they don't really understand...the kind of war we are fighting, how we are fighting it, who we are fighting, and why we are fighting. In other words they are pretty much clueless. Shades of Afghanistan, after the Soviets left. That worked out real well.
That's hardly the issue. Serious planners shouldn't rely on unserious people, or be surpised when they jump ship.
"Be done with Nation Building" then they don't really understand...the kind of war we are fighting, how we are fighting it, who we are fighting, and why we are fighting. In other words they are pretty much clueless.
Again, the administration has done a dismal job of communicating the who, how and why. It's hard to keep everyone following when the leaders don't lead. If your job it to lead the American people, you can't just assume that they wake up in the morning knowing what's going on. It takes a lot more then telling them it's going to be a long, tough struggle, and hoping that explaination does the trick.
Bump
"Our own successful three-week war, but their failed three-year peace."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.