Gaming Iraq's future

Well, it may be really bad. Or not - did you read today's polling data from Iraq? But in any case, I don't give a fig for any of these "all star" panels of experts who are as useless as hen shit on the pump handle. When have they ever been right?
Michael Scheuer? Is he the guy who helped us do...nothing...about OBL for so many years? These guys are like the weathermen who you hear on the radio forecasting a chance of rain as you stand in a deluge trying to hail a taxi. Our intelligence, military leadership, and Dept of State services need a major overhaul no matter who is the next President. In fact, I can't think of an agency - outside perhaps FEMA - that's been a bigger failure in the last 20 years than the CIA.
Sorry to rant, folks, but enough is enough. I will not encourage people to make light of or "game" a life and death struggle for Americans and Iraqis, no matter what you think of the war.
Sounds like something Jack Bauer would do.

Gary, Roe doesn't mean shit. If Roe falls then within a few weeks 48 or so states will have explicitly legalized abortion under almost all circumstances. Some states will ban 3rd trimester abortions, some will require parental consent for minors, and couple states (Mississippi?, Utah?) might ban it completely. But 99% of women who want abortions will still get them without Roe. If people would accept the reality that legal abortion is here to stay, and instead judge politicians based on, you know, administrative competence or something, then maybe Iraq wouldn't be in such a mess.

Joel: With all due respect, Roe, like Dred Scott, DOES "mean s--t". As you say, overturning Roe will not, ipso facto and overnight, materially change the abortion culture in America. But it's a vital first step in restoring our national sanity on this most important of issues. What the law says MATTERS. Both sides of the abortion divide agree on THAT. Segregation wasn't ended with Brown v Topeka, nor with the CRVA of 1964, but they both mattered enormously. And the fact that we as a nation continual to wrestle with questions of race doesn't vitiate in any way the importance of the legal battle. My point vis-a-vis Rod is that even his Islamo-violence forecast doesn't approach the death and misery and soul-deadening numbness of the abortion holocaust we've unleashed since Roe v. Wade.

Rod, abortion is a national security issue. It poisons our culture, which we export abroad. That poisonous culture is part of what fuels OBL's movement. People who could be either moderate Muslims or extremist Muslims, depending on the circumstances, see the sh*@stew we justify as the "American way" and decide that, yes, war with America is justiifed, especially since we "force" that sh*@stew on other cultures by exporting popular culture and Planned Parenthood. Also, when it comes down to full-scale catastrophe, people without principles cannot be counted on, and people like Giuliani who say, yes, it's murder, but who are we to judge, do not have principle. And those who cannot see that abortion is a major overriding cultural issue lack the kind of intellectual clarity we should demand of a leader. So yes, one can casually say abortion is "just one" cultural-political issue in the midst of a host of other issues, but that's kind of like picking out family finances or the marital love life as "just one issue" within a marriage. Or for that matter, it's like saying slavery was "just one issue" in the antebellum U.S. A truth so casually spoken amounts to a murderous lie, or in the absence of malice, fatal error. Btw, you posted above a "must read" article about the "liturgical city." Do you think your approach to abortion fits in with that paradigm? It seems to me not so.

BA, by that logic, you could just as easily say that poverty is a national security issue to justify voting Democratic. Or the environment is a national security issue (actually that's a more persuasive case).
Let's say it's 1812, and you are a passionate abolitionist. The British attack. Do you support the president who is most able to defend the country from the attackers, or do you support the president who is right on slavery? I believe that making a prudent choice in that particular instance doesn't mean you're a squish on slavery.

The war of 1812 analogy only works if you make three assumptions, two of which are dubious and one of which is flat wrong (I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine which is which). 1. You have to assume that Iraq is about to somehow or other engulf Europe in war, which strikes me as dubious. That seems like an unlikely outcome. A realistic worse case scenario is that we scurry out of Iraq with our prestige and will much tarnished and a sectarian blood bath explodes behind us. Terrorism becomes an even greater threat. But while this would be bad, its nowhere near the gotterdammerung you imagine. The United States is not militarily threatened. 2. Your have to assume that one candidate is clearly a much better executive and will clearly lead us to victory while the others will clearly lead us to defeat. But this is the sort of thing that no one can know. At best you might be able to identify a candidate who you think has somewhat better chances of being a good executive and you might then speculate that this extra executive capability will make the difference between victory and defeat. At best. 3. You have to assume that the pro-life movement is no closer to real progress at the federal level than the abolition movement was in 1812. Abolition was non-existent as a federal issue in 1812 whereas the next election is very likely to be the difference between overturning Roe v. Wade and keeping it as law. The numerous reasons that federal elections matter for pro-lifers has been discussed ad nauseam in previous threads, though Dreher has not responded.

So all that happened while Brezinski was Carter's national security advisor, no? It's all fine and good now, 30 years later, to disavow the outcome. And again, I'm not defending the Shah per se. Simply noting that Iran is a mess because of what Brezinzki's boss did or didn't do back then.

If it were not for America's pro-abortion, secular, porno, and generally debased culture, we wouldn't have to worry about being at war. However, given that we have taken the easy road to perdition, we Americans should pray on bended knee in thanksgiving to God for what blessings and protection He has given us in spite of this. Our sins cause war. Period.

Simon, frankly I don't know who I vote for in 2008, or if I'll vote at all. I do know that his or her ability to prudently manage America's foreign affairs in a critically dangerous world situation is going to be the most important factor (but not the only factor) informing my decision. I would defend that as a prudent course, given not only the state of the world, but political and social factors that make progress on other issues that I care a great deal about (abortion, the sanctity of marriage).
Let me frame it another way: let's say that George W. Bush could run for a third term. Would you vote for him, given that he's ostensibly pro-life, over a generic pro-choice Democrat? I wouldn't. Depending on who the Democrat was, I likely would vote third party (I could see voting for Biden, possibly). If you wouldn't vote for Bush in this hypothetical circumstance, then you've conceded that a candidate's position on abortion is not the only thing that matters, or at least not the most important thing.

While we're at it, let's toss a few more thunderclouds into the sh%tstorm.
Ever hear of Balochistan? The Balochis are an ethnic group along the Iran-Pakistan border. Like the Kurds, they have a drop or two of oil, and would kind of like their own country.
Any bets that Russia gets in a real war, either internal or external by the end of the decade? Russia, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, and Moldova are replete with ethnic minorities with their noses out of joint and buddies on the other side of the border. May you live in interesting times. Kim M

The only thing more important than defending America is to make sure that America is worth defending.

It was just a little over two years ago that most Americans did in fact vote for a grossly incompetent military adventurer with generally anti-abortion views. Permit me to point out that John Kerry, while generally pro-abortion (and generally an arrogant prick), is widely known to be a thoroughly competent administrator and legislator. Not as good at giving speeches as President Bush, but much, much better at making rational decisions. This is why I voted for Kerry, and why I *still* say that he would be a better President. After all, after six years of President Bush abortion is still legal in all 50 states, through the full nine months of pregnancy, for any reason or for no reason, and minors are not required to get parental consent. But Bush *says* he opposes it, and this matters because - ?