Justin, very fine job keeping us up with the latest from Iraq - we appreciate it!

The news is bleak, but as you say it is also very complicated. There was certainly some wishful thinking and naivete involved in planning this, but ANY kind of change of this magnitude wuld have inevitably drawn massive resistance from those who wish to install Islamist theocracy in every Islamic country. We must stick this fight out and prevail.

Democracy will not "prevail" in Iraq.

At best, there will first be an autocratic pseudo-representative government, possibly elected only by voters in (some of) the Shia areas of Iraq and possibly the Kurdish region if the election is held in January.

This will devolve to an even more autocratic governance when/if the US disengages (Allawi has signalled this already).

And civil war or a military coup will finally stabilize the country in a form similar to that under Saddam, although this time it may be a theocracy.

Until some other imperialists decide to jump in again and the cycle repeats.

Only wishful thinking would come up with any other scenarios.

That's one possibility - or has Nostradamus returned? This seems in keeping with the anti-Bush Stepford vision of the world.

Back in the fall of 2003, during the fake, lying weasel of a President's build-up to the invasion, the first thing I did was to read about Germany/the Vichy occupation of France during WWII. I figured that was the closest thing (in contemporary history) to what we would face once the "invasion" of Iraq ended in "victory".

(Other than Viet Nam, btw)

And I was right.

Too bad *Rummy and the Neo-Con gang didn't look it up too.




*Bush -- does he read?

Eric, I know it's hard to believe, but watching such a smart guy like you continue to support/justify this insane war in Iraq sorta makes you sound like the Stepford Dude in the bunch.

I sense a huge bizarre disconnect between your curious and admirable intellect vs your support of Bush and his policies.

For what it's worth --

Shark, I have endeavored at great length and in multiple iterations to explain why I favor an aggressive interventionist approach to the war on terror, the pursuit of which Bush most closely seems to adhere to.

I borrowed "Stepford" because I think it's important to see that the term cuts both ways.

Regardless, I appreciate the compliment and can understand how others would see the situation completely differently than I do.

Sometimes I see the situation differently than I do, but then I keep coming back to the same conclusions when I look at the entire scenario.

I think your Vichy analogy is interesting and instructive but I see the difference as being on the right vs the wrong side of history.

I agree with both yours and Hal's sense that Afghanistan must be finalized, supported and attended to, but we are going to have to do that work and Iraq at the same time - a huge task.

I think your Vichy analogy is interesting and instructive but I see the difference as being on the right vs the wrong side of history.

History seems to side with the independence movements. If the United States, in a simple-minded "war on terror", goes about the world taking sides against independence movements, whether in Iraq or in Palestine or in Chechnya, than the United States will probably find itself on the wrong side of history. We will have to be much more nuanced in our intervention, rather than jumping into every conflict based on the odd atrocity that catches our attention; otherwise al Qaeda or some likeminded group will be able to choose which conflicts we are drawn into and which side we fight on.

I agree with both yours and Hal's sense that Afghanistan must be finalized, supported and attended to, but we are going to have to do that work and Iraq at the same time - a huge task.

Not to mention whatever other work George W. Bush might commit us to in the next four years. Or should I say, whatever work Osama bin Laden commits us to as long as we have a President he can easily manipulate.

Bears repeating:

JR: "...History seems to side with the independence movements."

In every case I can think of throughout history.

(Okay, maybe the Vikings and Willie the Conqueror were exceptions...?)

And the endeavor also tends to destabilize and/or totally ruin the interventionist nation.

In every case.

Unless, of course -- as with the above two examples -- they assimilate and are assimilated.

--which ain't likely to happen when Islam clashes with the West.

The term "Stepford" only cuts when it applies and I'm as sorry as Shark is to see you so driven that way.

My post was not an "anti-Bush" anything unless your prismatic ideological goggles force you to see it that way.

Read Item 2 again, then do a search on the Web and see what Middle Eastern historians, particularly those with no American political affiliations, have to say about the situation.

It could be an eye-opener.

then we are in agreement: "Stepford" only applies when it applies

Okay, that takes care of my first paragraph ...

gentlemen, I sit here all day long reading the same things as you and everyone else does - I am astonished you can't comprehend that people would have the exact same input and arrive at different conclusions

Actually, I'm quite certain "you and everyone else" don't read the same materials I do.

For one thing, I read a lot of the neocon literature, spend time on their sites regularly, and even watch Fox News every week.

I also try to pick the less-biased media for input - books by historians rather than politicians, foreign newspapers and TV shows. These provide a far different picture than the sound-bites we get in this country.

And what I see is a lot closer to the view in the National Intelligence Estimate than in the right-wing postings on this site.