Was I wrong to support the war in Iraq? . . .
– Andrew Sullivan
"In retrospect, neoconservatives (and I fully include myself) made three huge errors. The first was to overestimate the competence of government, especially in very tricky areas like WMD intelligence. The shock of 9/11 provoked an overestimation of the risks we faced. And our fear forced errors into a deeply fallible system. When doubts were raised, they were far too swiftly dismissed. The result was the WMD intelligence debacle, something that did far more damage to the war’s legitimacy and fate than many have yet absorbed. . .
The second error was narcissism. America’s power blinded many of us to the resentments that hegemony always provokes. Those resentments are often as deep among our global friends as among our enemies–and make alliances as hard as they are important. That is not to say we should never act unilaterally. Sometimes the right thing to do will spawn backlash, and we should do it anyway. But that makes it all the more imperative that when we do go out on a limb, we get things right. In those instances, we need to make our margin of error as small as humanly possible. Too many in the Bush Administration, alas, did the opposite. They sent far too few troops, were reckless in postinvasion planning and turned a deaf ear to constructive criticism, even from within their own ranks. Their abdication of the moral high ground, by allowing the abuse and torture of military detainees, is repellent. Their incompetence and misjudgments might be forgiven. Their arrogance and obstinacy remain inexcusable.
The final error was not taking culture seriously enough. There is a large discrepancy between neoconservatism’s skepticism of government’s ability to change culture at home and its naivet
Oh how incredibly generous of you spook. Tell me something about that “common ground” you’re looking for. Are you hoping to build a consensus for a pullout from Iraq? Are you just longing for that country to plunge into an all out civil war so you can gloat?
Oh, but has the Bush administration learned its lesson? What I see is an adamant refusal to admit mistakes, and a refusal to change course. Pure bull-headedness, and blind stupidity from day one until now. Andrew Sullivan, George Will, and other thinking conservatives may be re-evaluating their positions now, but I don’t see Bush, Cheney or Rummy doing that… and therein lies the reason for the horrific failures of this administration.
Oh, but has the Bush administration learned its lesson? What I see is an adamant refusal to admit mistakes, and a refusal to change course. Pure bull-headedness, and blind stupidity from day one until now. Andrew Sullivan, George Will, and other thinking conservatives may be re-evaluating their positions now, but I don’t see Bush, Cheney or Rummy doing that… and therein lies the reason for the horrific failures of this administration.[/quote]
If we pull out from Iraq, a bloody civil war is sure to follow. If we stay, then we may be able to keep it under control, and it’s possible a stable government will eventually form and take over. Which of these two options do you believe will cause the greater number of casualties?
Oh how incredibly generous of you spook. Tell me something about that “common ground” you’re looking for. Are you hoping to build a consensus for a pullout from Iraq? Are you just longing for that country to plunge into an all out civil war so you can gloat?[/quote]
You’re right. It’s impossible to build any sort of rational consensus with ideologues and it was a foolish lapse on my part.
A pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq? How do you extricate yourself from a quagmire? My position here since 2002 has been once the U.S. went into Iraq it would create a power vacuum there which would bind it there for years because any force which would fill that power vacuum in the absence of the U.S. would be infinitely worse.
Quagmire. Get used to that word.
Since consensus is a dirty word to neoconservatives, it’s clear the only domestic alternative is to hammer them into the ground. Another one joins the circular firing squad:
What America needs now is a mighty blast of fire and Gladstone
– By Niall Ferguson
"The Republicans would certainly be foolish to climb on to what is left of Bush’s foreign policy. Nearly all its premises are crumbling before our eyes. The theory of a democratic peace is a chimera; give Muslims the vote and they vote for militants. Regime change in Iraq has not enhanced American security; its principal beneficiary has been Iran. As for the unipolar world, the reality is that the occupation of Iraq and its ramifications in the Greater Middle East now so dominate this administration’s agenda that the truly world-shaking event of our times has all but vanished from view. The administration is in at least two minds about the resurgence of China, and the result is a dangerous diplomatic schizophrenia, with half the signals indicating a new Cold War strategy of “containment” (why else help the Indians with their nukes?), and the other half continuing the older policy of conciliation.
After recklessness, ineptitude was the greatest defect of Disraelian foreign policy. Too bad the 22nd amendment will likely prevent us ever hearing a Gladstonian critique of today’s inept imperialism."
If we pull out from Iraq, a bloody civil war is sure to follow. [/quote]
Why?[/quote]
As spook said, if we pull out too soon we’ll leave in our wake an enormous power vacuum there that would give the various Shi’a and Sunni factions the very chance they’ve all been waiting for. The rhetoric pouring out from all of the various Islamofacist groups in Iraq consistently includes cries for patience. They know Americans have little tolerance for casualties and that there is growing unrest at home about the war. When President Bush announced he would be pulling home 7,000 troops al-Qaeda declared victory.
I was never a big fan of this war. The Prime Minister in Iraq is a militant Shi’a with strong ties to Iran…scores of Iraqi officials have connections to paramilitary organizations in both Iraq and Iran. In parts of Iraq the militias out-man and out-gun the Iraqi security forces. I also think there’s some truth in Ferguson’s assessment posted here by spook, but I still think we need to stick it out and give cooler heads a chance to prevail. There are Iraqis who genuinely want a peaceful co-existence in Iraq, and we do them no justice by leaving now.
Liberal: It’s a shame Milosevic died. He won’t face justice now.
Con: Yeah, it’s a shame.
Neocon: Of course he was going to call Clinton as a witness.
Con: Was he? I wonder how she managed to poison him?
Neocon: She is resourceful.
Con: And evil too.
If we pull out from Iraq, a bloody civil war is sure to follow. [/quote]
Why?[/quote]
…if we pull out too soon we’ll leave in our wake an enormous power vacuum there that would give the various Shi’a and Sunni factions the very chance they’ve all been waiting for. [/quote]
A couple things. One thing that is clear is that our presence there is probably the most important factor in making civil war in Iraq possible. But, even assuming you’re correct that the US leaving would lead to civil war, how would such a war be different than one we stuck around to watch start up?
These assured pronouncements that ALL the various Shia and Sunnis are waiting to slash each others’ throats reminds me of pronouncements that Hussein could nuke our asses in 45 minutes. Mostly playing on western fears of muslim arabs.
The fact is lots of folks (like Al Sadr) have been calling for calm and hoping to avoid the misery that would accompany any civil war.
Unless leaving now reduces the tensions.
The fact is there is only one way to know what would happen if we left Iraq tomorrow. And there’s only one way to know what it will be like if we stick it out 3 more years.
Yeah that al-Sadr, he’s a real prince. I mean, it’s not as if he’s the leader of an openly anti-American, Islamofascist, paramilitary organization that Coalition forces have been compelled to battle on two seperate occasions. And he certainly isn’t implicated in multiple assassinations, car bombings, or riots or anything like that.
And out comes the race card! It was just a matter of time really.
Maybe you’re right that our presence there exacerbates some of the ethnic/religious tensions. I would argue those tensions have been there for far longer than the United States has even been a country, and I’m doubtful our leaving would really stop the violence. But you’re right, there’s no way to know which is the best option except to just do it. My vote goes for staying. I just believe that’s the wiser option. I hope I’m not wrong.
For anyone interested in broad trends, rather than specific examples, this could be a good read.
[quote=“NYT Book Review: ‘American Theocracy,’ by Kevin Phillips”]Four decades ago, Kevin Phillips, a young political strategist for the Republican Party, began work on what became a remarkable book. In writing “The Emerging Republican Majority” (published in 1969), he asked a very big question about American politics: How would the demographic and economic changes of postwar America shape the long-term future of the two major parties? His answer, startling at the time but now largely unquestioned, is that the movement of people and resources from the old Northern industrial states into the South and the West (an area he enduringly labeled the “Sun Belt”) would produce a new and more conservative Republican majority that would dominate American politics for decades. Phillips viewed the changes he predicted with optimism. A stronger Republican Party, he believed, would restore stability and order to a society experiencing disorienting and at times violent change. Shortly before publishing his book, he joined the Nixon administration to help advance the changes he had foreseen.
Phillips has remained a prolific and important political commentator in the decades since, but he long ago abandoned his enthusiasm for the Republican coalition he helped to build. His latest book (his 13th) looks broadly and historically at the political world the conservative coalition has painstakingly constructed over the last several decades. No longer does he see Republican government as a source of stability and order. Instead, he presents a nightmarish vision of ideological extremism, catastrophic fiscal irresponsibility, rampant greed and dangerous shortsightedness. (His final chapter is entitled “The Erring Republican Majority.”) In an era of best-selling jeremiads on both sides of the political divide, “American Theocracy” may be the most alarming analysis of where we are and where we may be going to have appeared in many years. It is not without polemic, but unlike many of the more glib and strident political commentaries of recent years, it is extensively researched and for the most part frighteningly persuasive.
Although Phillips is scathingly critical of what he considers the dangerous policies of the Bush administration, he does not spend much time examining the ideas and behavior of the president and his advisers. Instead, he identifies three broad and related trends
It’s an interesting question. But if there is one thing that neoconservatives are certainly not, it’s “ultralibertarian”.
While a central component of most definitions of neoconservatism is a belief in the use of military force abroad to accomplish certain ends, libertarians are generally opposed to any war that is not a clear and unambiguous case of self defense.
Not only were virtually all libertarians opposed to the Iraq war, but most were also against the first Iraq War, Vietnam, Korea, World War I, Spanish-American, Mexican… and, yes, many even opposed US involvement in World War II. Indeed, when you read their literature, or political platforms, one of the first things that may strike you is how fiercely, almost rabidly anti-war they are (certainly compared to your average Republican or Democrat).
Then again, most libertarians are also strongly opposed to much of what you might call “mainstream conservatism”. See, for example, positions on:
— drug prohibition
— differing legal treatment for homosexuals and heterosexuals
— censorship and other restrictions on free speech
— agricultural and other subsidies
— increased executive/Presidential power; and
— high levels of military spending.
For anyone who’s interested, Francis Fukuyama discusses his position on neo-conservativism on National Public Radio’s: On Point. The podcast is easy to find through iTunes, or you can listen here.
I’m still listening to it, but so far, my favorite quote from Fukuyama is: “[color=blue]I agree that the most dishonest thing that the administration did in the lead up to the war is tying Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda, and to this day something like 70% of the soldiers serving out there think they’re avenging Sept. 11, and that I think is quite deliberate, and they knew better.[/color]” (22 minute mark)
[quote=“Jaboney”]For anyone who’s interested, Francis Fukuyama discusses his position on neo-conservativism on National Public Radio’s: On Point. The podcast is easy to find through iTunes, or you can listen here.
I’m still listening to it, but so far, my favorite quote from Fukuyama is: “[color=blue]I agree that the most dishonest thing that the administration did in the lead up to the war is tying Saddam Hussein to Al Qedea, and to this day something like 70% of the soldiers serving out there think they’re avenging Sept. 11, and that I think is quite deliberate, and they knew better.[/color]” (22 minute mark)[/quote]
Maybe Fukuyama has been in academia too long. You know the type?
Saddam and Al-qaeda? Lots of ties. Mohamed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence 5 months before September 11. The Salman Pak military base outside of Baghdad trained Islamic terrorists from a variety of countries including Saudi Arabia.
Al-qaeda operatives celebrated b-day parties with Uday in 1998 and were personally invited to Iraq to train.
The murder of Abu Nidal because he refused to train Al-qaeda operatives.
Unit 999 - Saddam’s special security network trained with Al-qaeda operatives to undertake a number of attacks in Europe and the Middle East…
George Sada, AKA number two, is selling a book that says that two friends of his told him that they took all that WMD to Syria. It’s in all the right-wing blogs, so it must be true. The MSM doesn’t report it because they agin’ us, they no fer us.
