Once upon a time, I believed...

couldn't agree more, particularly with regard to the loss of trust in government institutions. I realize now how naive I was. I take no pleasure in this newfound wisdom.

I no longer believe that US military and intelligence power is sufficient to contain the very real threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of individuals and small groups, particularly biological weapons, which leads to believe that such weapons will be used in acts of terrorism at some point over the coming years.

Bless,
Doug

All mankind should enjoy these rights which we in the West take for granted, but these rights have their source in Jesus Christ, not the state. While implausible it might seem, spreading democracy to Iraq or the Middle East should start with spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ first, then, perhaps, democracy will follow. So long as people are enslaved by the yoke of Islam, democracy as we enjoy in the U.S. is likely never to follow.

Perhaps, but given that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was spread in Western Europe in, let's say, the period from 0-500 CE, and we didn't even get Magna Carta until the 13th century, it doesn't seem like the path from Christianization to liberal democracy is a short one. But don't get me wrong, any missionaries with the stones to go evangelizing in Saudi Arabia certainly have my respect. There might be an easier way, that's all I'm saying.

Anyway, it's always heartening to see the acknowledgment that there are lesson to be learned from the second Iraq war. There are still quite an awful lot of holdouts who still see this as some sort of Tinkerbell-clapping exercise, and that the fact that Saddam Hussen was indisputably evil justifies everything and anything done to remove him from power.

I have a far greater appreciation for how rare and fragile liberal democracy is, and a corresponding revulsion at the American assumption that it's the natural state of mankind. Which is to say, the war has made me rethink my ideas about human nature, and I'm far more pessimistic now than I ever was.

In many ways I'm a theological liberal, but I am entirely comfortable with the notion of human depravity apart from divine grace. I believe democracy merely manages that depravity better than other systems. Unfortunately, as Rod points out, democractic culture is NOT part of human nature.

My list includes:

That the Constitution will somehow protect itself. While some here will disagree, the Bush administration has walked all over habeas corpus, due process and other rights. Cheney in particular shows utter disdain for the Constitutional separation of powers/checks and balances. I never thought that so much trampling could happen. But it can, and has, because no one (or not enough people) stood up.

Ben, the Constitution will not protect itself. I am not betraying anyone to say that there are those of us on Active Service who have noted that our first loyalty, in our oath of enlistment, is to the Constitution. Our secondary responsibility is to obey the President and all officers appointed over us by law. Pray that we never have to make such a distinction.

I think AB understood, but to be clear: I no longer assume that the Constitution will protect itself.

Welcome to adulthood Rod! Hope your not done on the introspection. If this is all you got out of the last few years then you got lots more coming down the pike o' introspection.

those of us on Active Service who have noted that our first loyalty, in our oath of enlistment, is to the Constitution. Our secondary responsibility is to obey the President and all officers appointed over us by law.

With all due respect, you could'a fooled me. I must have missed the wide-scale mutiny of the military in their refusal to fight in an undeclared war.

Your comment #5 is most apt. Our tradition of liberty comes from the organic rules of interaction that evolved over generations. (Yes, Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk still have something to teach us.) That tradition comes from our character as a people. Our common history, language, and beliefs are what enabled the level of trust that lets minimum government work.

Which is why the forms that naturally developed in our culture cannot be implanted successfully elsewhere. And which is also why we must protect our traditional demographic if we are to preserve those forms.

Susan, you say "England succeed in teach a lot of it in India.."

I think you've just recapitulated the problem. The West teaches, the rest of the "backwards" world learns. That's the formula that created this mess to begin with.

For a critique of such imperial hubris from a Burkean perspective, I recommend Uday Singh Metha's "Liberalism and Empire." And for a perspective on what kind of mechanisms were used to compel India to respect the so-called "rule of law," see Mike Davis' "Late Victorian Holocausts."

I think the problem is the need for a belief in certainty, both then and now. Old "pro-invasion" certainties have been replaced with the "anti-war" (or at least anti-Bush) certainties. Therein I think is the problem.

The examples are many: If only there were more troops. If only we stopped the looting (presumably by shooting looters). If only there was no Abu Ghraib (as if shooting looters en masse would have been better).

Yet, to admit your loosing "confidence in the ability of our military, or any military, to solve deep cultural and civilizational problems through force alone" may also mean that a "heavier footprint" espoused by some neocritics mightn't have solved anything either. Indeed, a heavier footprint and a more comprehensive occupation might have played right into the enemy's hit and run tactics, increased casualties, and politically caused an early US withdrawl.

So, where has the success been? Ironically, recently in the ashes of our "failures," or more specifically, in those of the Iraqis. Allowing the Iraqis to taste life under al Qaida's brutality may prove to be the single greatest impetus for the country to now move toward peace and security at the local level.

To conclude, enough with the egocentric, all or nothing certainties. It wasn't all right or wrong to invade Iraq. It wasn't all right or wrong to pursue a "light footprint" strategy that allowed Iraqis to taste failure, yet preserve them a lifeline and respresentative government that gave them the opportunity to turn it around for themselve and possibly succeed.

While I'm uncertain whether success is likely, I am confident that an abrupt withdawl because some now are "certain" of our failure is the worse course we could follow.

Just remember, your government rulers still love you very much. If you can't trust them who can you trust? Who will love you more than your government.

Congratulations Rod! You are on the way to joining the Remnant. You will like the company.

I no longer believe there are any principles on the conservative side that are in any way superior to those on the liberal side. Today's conservatism is primarily a cheerleading squad for the monstrous incompetence and malpractice of GWB and the Repubs. Listen to talk radio, and these men are either fools or liars.

>>Listen to talk radio, and these men are either fools or liars.

>>Posted by: Jack | July 25, 2007 12:26 AM

And let's not forget, totally unwilling to actively and personally participate in the violence they advocate that others do.

Even if they learn, with their exposure to Al Qaeda (whatever they couldn't have learned from their decades with Saddam.. what? That religion makes it even worse? Or that one bad guy is better than a non-centralized group?), they may STILL not end up like we are.

It is quite possible, in the end, if left to their own devices, that they might end up with a group of mildly squabbling, but still much more peaceful tribal sheikdoms. You know, like they were before the West stepped in, in the first place and re-drew their map and arbitrarily, with no concern (much less knowledge) for history, culture, religion or ethnicity.

We won't like it. Even if it turned out peaceful. It isn't convenient for our economic purposes. We like nice, big, centralized governments, where deals for oil extraction can be made through one agency, and we know that will remain same, and the borders will remain stable, throughout the length of the contract.

That may simply not be what this area turns out to be.

Unless they change their whole paradigm, to where an imposed and artificial nation-state identity trumps their millennia old ethnic, racial, tribal and religious ones, Democracy will only be seen as one tool to get what their group wants, and if it fails (they lose the election), they simply seek other means. Democracy doesn't work until IT is actually seen as a good for its own sake, and worth preserving, even if, when enacted, you don't get what you want.

To answer Rod's question: I've been disillusioned of the notion that there is a conservative party in the USA. We have right-wing and left-wing parties, both of which expand the power of government, both of which engage in social engineering, both of which put politics ahead of national security, neither of which is fiscally responsible.

Conservatives used to wish to limit the power of government, to eschew social engineering, to have politics stop at the water's edge, and to limit spending. I still believe in those values, but the party of Goldwater and Reagan no longer exists.

I found it a relief to ready your post. It's been shocking to me how few people are able to learn from experience. I'm afraid our current administration hasn't learned a thing, and I'm deathly afraid as a result the war may expand to Iran.

What did I use to believe that I no longer I can? I used to believe that it was impossible for an American President to be re-elected after leading the nation into an unprovoked war under what were proven by that time to be false pretenses, and after having shamed our country by disparaging the Geneva conventions, engaging in torture, and holding people for years without charge. I used to believe that the American people had enough decency and sense they'd never stand for such a thing. I still don't know how it was possible.

--Rick Taylor

Not a word of sorrow for the 3500+ US servicemen killed in Iraq. Or the deaths hundreds of thousands of Iraq citizens. No sir, you stay with the neo-cons where you belong. YOU with your drum-beating for the war, crying 'traitor, appeaser & libtard' to any disenting voice, started this war for gain. Nothing else. Personaly I hope you never get another nights sleep. The stench of you and the rest of the US Govt really is abhorant.

I'm no psychologist, but I think Jack Reed might be a wee bit upset at you.

Oh, Jack,

Just because Bush turned out to be a crony-coddling disaster, doesn't mean the libtards have anything resembling a clue.

After 8 years of Clinton I pretty well despised the American political Left.

After a miniature eternity of BushCo? I hate both sides.

So far as re-electing Skippy McDumbass, all I can say is this: Kerry was - and still is, mind you - a bigger idiot. Easily. And, there's absolutely NOBODY to blame buy ol' Bushie-boy his own self.

Sounds like Rod Dreher is suffering from 20-80 hindsight. Although he can still see the past, it seems he cant see it very well.

1. Having been absolutely certain that the war was the right thing to have done, and that we would prevail easily, I am no longer confident that I can discern when emotion is affecting my judgment unduly.

The war WAS the right thing to have done. Saddam had to go. Our military position of being involved in a hot war in Afghanistan, and a cold war in Korea, with the possibility of Iran going nuclear, demanded that we free up those forces (some 250 thousand of them, in Germany and in the US, as well as in the Mideast) allocated for containment of Saddam. The problem wasnt that we went to war, but that we went to war with a thoroughly inept and corrupt administration bound to use the war for its own political and financial ends. It should have been obvious to everyone that these people have been liars, thieves, and cowards, all their lives. And no war would ever change that. When the war aims given on day one of the invasion included making Iraq a "stable democratic ally in the war on terror", it should have been clear to all that the goal here was not to win the war, but to make the war last as long as possible in order to drain the treasury for the benefit of politically connected contractors. 20-20 hindsight shows that even the best intentions can be screwed by corrupted officials.

2. I no longer implicitly trust governmental institutions, including the military -- neither in their honesty nor their competence.

Govt institutions should never be trusted implicitly. They should only be trusted as far as oversight can watch them. But it isnt the institutions themselves that are corrupted or inept, it is the people in charge of those institutions that need constant watching. And this administration is completely inept and corrupt when it comes to running the govt. But that isnt news to me. I could see it coming before the 2000 election. You can tell alot about a group of politicians like Bush/Cheney/Rove by how they run their campaigns. Dirty tricks abounded. Cheap shot soundbites that lacked truth and meaning, such as the oft repeated lies about how "Al Gore invented the internet" when any brief check would show Gore said no such thing. But those same lies were picked up and repeated over and over by the media and the bloggers. Lots and lots of lies. Not to mention tarring Gore with Clinton's brush. And the 2004 campaign was even worse. I no longer trust the American people to know shit from Shinola. 20-29 hindsight would show that Bush and Cheney have been liars, thieves, and cowards all their lives

3. I no longer believe the Republican Party is superior in foreign policy judgment to the Democrats.

They never were. And if you ever believed they were, you were listening to WAY to much Rush Limbaugh. You cant judge a persons foreign policy credentials by his party. Nor can you judge any other of a candidates abilities in military, economic, social, or legal spheres, by party. Never could. Judge them by their past record. Any serious look at the past record of Bush/Cheney/Rove should have given you a clue that these guys would become the most corrupt, inept administration in history, bar none! 20-20 hindsight would show that Republicans AND Democrats have both had outstanding successes and failures in the past in the field of foreign policy.

4. I no longer have confidence in the ability of our military, or any military, to solve deep cultural and civilizational problems through force alone. I mean, I thought nothing could stand in the way of the strongest military fielded since the days of ancient Rome. No more.

No military could ever solve such problems. History has shown us that. Its not their job. Their job is to win wars, when the threat of war is no longer sufficient to prevent a war. Our military could very easily have won this war in Iraq, given the proper political leadership and an achievable goal. As mentioned above, the ultimate war aim given by the administration on the first day of the invasion was "to make Iraq a stable democratic ally in the war on terror". The military could have made Iraq stable, had Rumsfeld not undercut the generals who claimed such a task would require 500 thousand troops. That was his incompetence. But NO army can make a people decide they want to be democratic. Only the people can do that. And only the legitimate government of Iraq will be able to determine whether they want to ally with us in the war on terror. When we leave Iraq, the Iraqi people will choose their own government, and that government will choose its own policies. Its not something our military can force on Iraq or anyone else.

5. I have a far greater appreciation for how rare and fragile liberal democracy is, and a corresponding revulsion at the American assumption that it's the natural state of mankind. Which is to say, the war has made me rethink my ideas about human nature, and I'm far more pessimistic now than I ever was.

Freedom has always been fragile, and very easily lost. The natural state of mankind in general is to be sheep. They look for leadership. The problem is they dont know how to pick that leadership. They tend to follow the one who bleats the loudest. WAR ON TERROR!!!! FEAR!!!! DESTROY THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE!!!! HONESTY AND INTEGRITY!!!! 20-20 hindsight should show you that these guys never had any honesty or integrity. But they sure know how to bleat. Just what the sheep wanted to hear, too. But 20-20 hindsight should also show you that the American people do tend to learn from their mistakes, eventually, and will take action to correct themselves. There's still hope even though silly bloggers like Dreher, who continue to see the problems emotionally instead of clinically, dont make it any easier. Instead of cheerleading candidates like Bush who say all the things he wants to hear, he should examine the past actions of the candidates with a dispassionate eye, and a view of history, and a bias toward truth and honesty instead of the party line.

"The sad thing is that this was all pretty clear by the middle of 2004, if not earlier, yet we still re-elected Bush. Why? Why?"

Well Ed, it boils down to three words: John F****** Kerry. It was easy to vote for Bush because we knew what to expect: aggressive diplomacy, reluctance to rely on the UN for our own security, refusal to betray our Iraqi allies, and otherwise continuing to give the jihadis a hard time everywhere. Kerry tried to please both his "let's do this a better way" supporters and his "peace at any price" supporters with the result that he came across as inconsistent. By Super Tuesday, I had no idea what Kerry's foreign policy would be if he were elected beyond holding meetings with Europeans and sending more troops to Iraq...or withdrawing troops, depending on which crowd he was addressing.

I'm older than many of the posters on this site, and I came to many of my views by reading a now forgotten writer, Walter Lippmann. Lippmann was a realist. He believed that you had to match your foreign policy commitments to your military means and that you had to be sure that your actions would actually advance your foreign policy goals. Of course, there's nothing new about this. It's just applied common sense.

When the Bush administration started promoting a new Iraq war, I was dubious about the weapons of mass destruction argument. Because of General Zinni's comments and the testimony of General Shinseki, I didn't think we'd have enough troops to occupy the country. And finally, because of the speeches of members of the first Bush administration back in 1991 and 1992, particular then Secretary of Defense Cheney, I was convinced that Iran would be the only winner if we ousted Saddam. I thought another Iraq war would end badly, but I confess I had no idea it would turn out to be such an disaster.

The main illusion I've lost about our Iraq adventure is the feeling that newspaper columnists and other writers on foreign affairs are competent. Some of them are. But most of them, particularly William Krystol, Charles Krauthammer, and other neoconservatives, are ignorant and reckless fools.

1) A war of aggression based on lies is never the right thing to do. If you believed the lies about imminent danger (Colin Powell was convincing, wasn't he?), fine, but this was a crime from the beginning.
2) Never trust government institutions run by an administration that wants to destroy government.
3) The Republican party has always been irresponsible in foreign policy; the Democratic party has always been better at it. (Thrill, read some real history: you'll find out you're wrong about nearly everything you wrote).
4) The military has never been capable of solving anything other than military problems by force alone.
5) Liberal democracy is, and always has been, fragile. Republicans, as a general rule, don't care about safeguarding it.

What I used to believe: that a Republican could be an acceptable choice in the voting booth. I now believe that voting Republican is an act of evil.

Republicae:

How exactly are we to "thrive in Liberty to fulfill the ultimate goal of the Natural Rights of Man" in "Peace and Prosperity" when we are facing people who want to crash airplanes into the offices where we "thrive in Liberty" (for the Peace and Prosperity thing) with impunity because we're afraid to fight back? If we fail to meet our basic requirement for security, all of your higher ideals that you put in your little manifesto are useless.

Thrill demonstrates amply that he is precisely the sort of tool that Bush/Cheney/Rove used to get us into this mess.

I 'll deal with some of his points.

1. Yep, appoint the prosecutor and find out how the war was sold. George Tenet is a Democrat, he's a target, so is anyone else who as involved. I think however, he will find a lot of targets amongst the signatories of the Project for a New American Century (who included Wolfowitz, Cheney, Libby, Rummy, Perle, Feith and so on) who had decided by 1998 that they wanted to take over Iraq for strategic (aka imperial) reasons. I reckon that PNAC will turn out to be the neocon Mein Kampf. They acted on their agenda once in power.

2. Apologies to the US military victims. Remember-this is BeliefNet. Spirituality. Values. Etc. When you commit a sin, you confess and repent. When you run over a kid on your way to your fat cat paycheck, you apologize (at the very least). Yeah, you take a hit, but that is the price of being responsible. Calling it politics is to forget the meaning of the word integrity. And the call to apology applies to everyone involved.

3.Excess deaths. The numbers are exaggerated huh? These are the same people and same techniques used in censuses, epidemiology, and insurance rate setting. Lancet is one of the world's top 2-3 medical oriented journals. I am a scientist and journal editor and believe me, peer review in first rate journals smokes out bad research like nothing does in politics. The Iraqi mortality surveyors have well established means to measure errors---which is why the wide variance only increases the credibility of the effort. They make no statement as to who killed who---merely that the US invasion and occupation correlated with 200K-700K deaths more than would have been expected absent said invasion (ie under Saddam). Is the US guilty of massacre? OF course not. But we are responsible for catalyzing the development of a Hobbsian state of anarchy. It is simply astonishing that the military which so wisely administered the post WW II occupation of Japan and the Western Sector of Germany could be stuck holding the bag for an occupation which was organized (by Bush et al via Bremer) with total disregard for historical lessons. What we have done is closest to the French disaster in Algeria---they won the war against the insurgency, by their stupid conduct (torture and repression) lost the occupation, and it has been sectarian murder ever since.

As for foreign fighters in Iraq, well, the Pentagon has, from the beginning of the war, noted that "foreign fighters" comprise ~5% (10% absolute max) of the insurgents that they find/capture/kill. The vast majority are native Sunni and Shia, who indeed vary from being sectarian to to secular nationalist depending on what they call themselves. Oh yeah, by the way, current reporting shows that half of the captured foreign fighters are Saudi. Like the 9/11 hijackers.

The Bushies are now engaged in selling the next Big Lie that Al Qaeda is the organizer of the entire Iraqi insurgency. The previous Big Lie was that Iran was the organizer, but they ran into a problem with that one---why would Iran support the Sunnis, who are responsible for the majority of attacks against Americans. And now their communiques talk of Iranian support for Shia sectarians, which makes a lot more sense. But they need a big monolithic enemy, a Voldemort, and so it is Al Qaeda. Fact is, if you follow world--as opposed to US Fox news--there are heaps of sects, groups and so on in Iraq, all with their own agenda, websites, and press releases. And with Kalashnikovs and bombs.
Al Qaeda, aka Sunni jihadists from outside Iraq, are no doubt there. But to call them the leader or instigator is to ignore the intense local tribalism of this part of the world. Saudi Arabia itself is held together by a web of royal marriages between tribes. Even Hollywood understood this 30 years ago, go watch Lawrence of Arabia for a dramatization of the effect recounted in Lawrence's books.

Press outliers as Brownshirts. Back in the early 70s when I was a student, the leftwing nut jobs outnumbered the conservative nuts by at least an order of magnitude, and they spouted pure Jacobinism. Now it is the right. The lefty Frankens are few and mild by comparison, they have to say really stupid things even to get noticed, and they dont' have remotely the number of loony followers aka Dittoheads. Podhoretz Sr wanted to bomb Iran over a dozen hostages. Ann Coulter has execution fantasies. The NRO crazies publish Regnery book after book villainizing anyone to the left (or centre) of them as fascist, atheist, traitor baby killers. Rush Limbaugh and O Reilly compete to be the Goebbels of the movement. And that is why Bush can claim he never said Saddam was behind 9/11 or that people who disagreed with him were traitors---the paid Fox etc press did it for him. And 70% of the public thought this was true in 2003. Cheney has more trouble, he did really say that Saddam had a real nuke problem, that Al Qaeda had links (the Atta in PRague riff), and that to disagree is essentially treason. It's on tape.

And like the Nazis and the Bolsheviks, these folks hate science, whether it is evolution, climatology, or even math. FActs are troublesome.

[My favorite Bush fact: W has doubled defense spending, when you count the Pentagon official budget plus off budget expenditures on Afghanistan, Iraq etc. And yet after ~5 years we have 500,000 people (2 sets of 150K soldiers in rotation, plus 150K contractors) tied down in IRaq by an estimated 20,000 insurgents. Someone should be asking questions.)

It is just as outlined in the famous essay by HOfstadter in the 1950s on the paranoid style in American politics. (which was also the driving mania in the English Civil War, French and Russian revolutions, the Nazi and Italian Fascist "prises de pouvoir", the Spanish Civil war, Cambodia. It always ends with an authoritarian regime of left or right---see Cromwell, Robespierre, Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler, Mussoline, Franco, Pol Pot ).

The US will be spared this, happily, because of a Constitution and long tradition which are, even when trampled as at present, resilient enough to slow the radicalization process down enough for a few journalists, lawyers both civilian and military, and then the public to wake up. And that is why I am not worried about barbed wire myself. But when we have people--even a few--being tortured (sometimes dying, a la Gestapo), held secretly, or having their families threatened a la KGB, it makes me worry about what might have been.

(And I know what the downside might look like. I have lived in Russia, and I know people who have had intimate dealings with the KGB. Shiver.)

It also disturbing how much of the inside the beltway media are prone to protect their fat paychecks by becoming courtiers. See Judy Miller, Broder, Hiatt, Thomas Friedman, Novak (the champ) and even the present day Woodward.

Gone are the days of the young, underpaid Woodward and Bernstein. But we are lucky enough to have primary source reporters like Seymour Hersh (Abu Ghraib), Dana Priest (who blew the whistle on the Bush mini Gulag and other things) and honest conservative pundit types like Wm F Buckley (and humorist son Christopher), Andrew Sullivan, etc.

Impeachment. When the Executive refuses to answer subpoenas and undermines prosecutions, impeachment is the instrument Congress has. And I think the Dems will not use it unless pushed by the public. Why? Well, they think the longer they have political corpses like Gonzalez rotting in the sun, the better the chances of a big win in 2008. Good for the Dems, maybe not so good for the US, we will see. And if you look at the disapproval-of-Congress stats in detail, you find that the big part of the public seem to be down on them because they won't move faster to get out of the Iraq mess (which will not be easy in any case).

I could go on, but Thrill is most likely a 25 per center, so it is a lost cause.

jhh

It was the neocon hope that by puting a moron in charge the U.S. would prevail by sheer ruthlessness. We have seen that approach before and it was the neocons and their relatives that were the principal victims. Strange that they would fall for the fascist song that treated them so badily, but he is "their" fascist?? It is too bad that the U.S. cannot employ their "harsh interrogations" to solve the 911 mysteries and the lies that have killed so many American citizens. Instead, the leader pardons his co-conspirators in the monserous crimes they committed!

Ok Jeffy, we'll go point by point:

1) IF anything illegal was done in the run up to war, let it come out to the light of day. You say it was, I say it wasn't; a thorough investigation will put it to rest, although I doubt that will happen since both Republicans and Democrats had a hand in coming to the decision.

2. George W Bush and the National Review and whomever else you want to throw under the bus did not kill our soldiers. The ENEMY did and I think THEY should apologize and go home.

3. "I am a scientist and journal editor and believe me, peer review in first rate journals smokes out bad research like nothing does in politics."

Well I'm a private investigator and I know a thing or two about objectivity and accuracy. I also know that if I gave a client such wildly exaggerated and used "wide variances" on a matter, I'd probably lose my job. If you wanted to make the case that 700,000 Iraqis have been DISPLACED and you called that a humanitarian crisis, I'd agree.

"It is simply astonishing that the military which so wisely administered the post WW II occupation of Japan and the Western Sector of Germany could be stuck holding the bag for an occupation which was organized (by Bush et al via Bremer) with total disregard for historical lessons."

Japan was pacified because of near-starvation from unrestricted submarine warfare, attrition, and the fire bombing of it's capital and the use of atomic bombs against it. Germany was beaten into submission by bombings as well and also suffered from Soviet soldiers who used rape and terror of civilian as a psychological warfare technique. Are you proposing that we withdraw from Iraq and then re-invade using these proven strategies to win the peace?

"The lefty Frankens are few and mild by comparison, they have to say really stupid things even to get noticed, and they dont' have remotely the number of loony followers aka Dittoheads."

Ah yes, the old "my pundits aren't as bad as your pundits" defense. The fact is that Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, or even Michael Savage have not spurred any acts of violence nor have they intended to.

"The NRO crazies publish Regnery book after book villainizing anyone to the left (or centre) of them as fascist, atheist, traitor baby killers."

Just as the HuffPo calls all Republicans "chickenhawks", Air America personalities call military families "idiots", and the legion of Leftie blogs call Cheney "Vader" and Bush "a monkey", "Hitler", and a "coke-head". Hell, you couldn't even stop yourself from comparing the government to the "Gestapo" when responding to me!

Bugg charges the US government with "A silly blend of incompetence with a total lack of ruthlessness." With half a million children dead during the previous sanctions, and deaths rushing toward a million in the current occupation, I shudder to think what the numbers of dead would have been if the US were being "ruthless".

Individuals live and learn and so do governments. The neocons forgot the lessons of Vietnam and were convinced that smart bombs would compensate for their dumb idea of whipping the Iraqis into submission within one month. Then, as planned, they would move on to Iran and then Syria. After which US and British Big Oil would privatize Iraqi oil and move in for the kill. The Administration would hold onto at least four bases in the country, thereby giving the US a launching pad for its future wars of control and domination in the Middle East, turning off the tap when China misbehaved in future.

OK, label me a leftist simply for understanding the neocon playbook.

"...label me a leftist simply for understanding the neocon playbook."

Actually, I was going to label you a leftist for implying that the US has killed 1.5 million people through the sanctions (instead of Saddam and the corrupt Oil for Food program of the UN) and the Iraq War (instead of the Jihadis and radical militias). It's the predictable hatred of the US that identifies you as a leftist, not your insight into the conduct of the neocons-for whom I have little love either.

Yes, Thrill, I am sure you would conclude I hated my children when I told them they were doing wrong and tried to teach them how to become better human beings. Like the Israel lobby, you have a playbook of labels for anyone who has a different view. Your glass is half-empty and anyone else who sees it as half-full would be leftist. Brilliant.

"Ah yes, the old "my pundits aren't as bad as your pundits" defense. The fact is that Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, or even Michael Savage have not spurred any acts of violence nor have they intended to."

You've got to be joking.

Ann Coulter never incited violence? You don't remember her saying we should bomb whoever was responsible for 9/11, kill their leaders, invade their countries and convert them all to Christianity?

You neocons are the most shameless liars in our political history.

Lies. Lies. Lies. Warmongers and lies.

You mean to tell the world that you have carefully and fully studied the wars of the 20th century, and weren't able to come to the most obvious conclusion of all: That you can not start a war with any hope of predicting its course, let alone its outcome. WWI was only the basic blunder; the Japanese started the Pacific war and lost, the Germans started the European war and lost, the Soviets started the Cold War and lost, the N. Koreans started that war and lost (or at least stalemated with the help of the Chinese), we conned our way into Vietnam and lost, and now we've disillusioned our way into dropping 160,000 troops into the center of Islam and have all but lost. In the name of all that is Holy, what possible good is the study of war IF YOU DON'T LEARN SOMETHING FROM YOUR STUDY!

Here's another lesson from the wars of the 20th century: Big sticks will be wielded by both sides, and just because you can IMAGINE victory don't make it so!

It's the predictable hatred of the US that identifies you as a leftist, not your insight into the conduct of the neocons-for whom I have little love either.

Predictable.

As a leftist, I hate when vile things are done in the name of my country. America: I love it and would never leave it. Which is why it grieves me so when mendacious fools implement greedy, violent, or just plain stupid policy that reflects poorly on the USA and its citizens and is, frankly, beneath us.

But why even bother to explain this to you? I'm sure you'll trot this hoary old trope out again. It's just too easy, isn't it?

I no longer trust the media to actually report anything.

Me neither. Unity '08!

I do not trust news networks who don't mind telling me how many of my boys were killed today, yet, they can never bring themselves to tell me how many of the enemy were killed on the same day.

The enemy is not gracious enough to wear uniforms or dog tags. How do you tell dead enemy from dead bastards who got caught in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Also, I know it's sexy and au courant to imagine there's this vast horde of Al Qaeda waiting to be righteously slaughtered, but the fact is that most of the people participating the sectarian and insurgent warfare are Iraqis, and success in Iraq will mean less Iraqis getting killed. We went in to destroy WMDs and spread democracy whiskey sexy, remember? Remember that? Or should we just shift over to "exterminate the brutes" mode so we have some metric by which we can claim to "win?"

I no longer trust people who scoff when the name Fox News is mentioned, and call them biased, yet, they have ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, AP, who all report lock step with the anti-war machine and believe what they are getting is pure unbiased reporting.

A quick perusal of the liberal blogosphere would reveal widespread contempt and skepticism in all network and cable news, print media (even the NYT!), and yes, even our comrades in public broadcasting. Get better talking points.

I no longer believe that our troops do not support this war as we are told by said media. Explain how an all volunteer military is having record numbers of reenlistments.

No matter how many people sign up to be part of a bad idea, that does not make it a good idea. But I can certainly understand why somebody who has given many months of their lives to service in Iraq, sacrificed time with their families, watched friends die in combat, etc, would resist the existential horrorshow of coming to grips with the fact that this was the wrong war for the wrong reasons and may very well end in something resembling failure. Talk about the ultimate betrayal.

I no longer trust news papers who print classified information in order to undermine a president they feel is violating the constitution, when these very same papers will support a "fairness doctrine" that will limit speech on the public radio. (IOW, when you cannot compete in the market place of ideas, you then silence those with whom you cannot compete. Stalin said it best "Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't allow our enemies to have guns, why should we allow them to have ideas?") Remind me where we are guaranteed free speech? The Constitution? Bill of Rights?

I had no idea where this "fairness doctrine" stuff is coming from, so I Googled it. I see several papers with editorials against reinstating it, none supporting it, and utter radio silence on the subject from liberal blogs. I guess some legislation was introduced, but everybody either thought it was a bad idea or didn't take it seriously (except for the right-wing blogs, who got all hopping excited about the evil Dhimmicrats trying to silence such brilliant idea-men as Limbaugh and Savage). So, uh, whatever, dude.

I no longer believe that anti-war protesters are being honest when they bring up Osama Bin Ladin. They say we should fight and kill AQ where ever we find them, everywhere that is except Iraq.

"Fighting them where we find them" does not mean "turning countries without an AQ presence into lawless killboxes so that they can freely move in and establish themselves and hone their terrorist skills there, meanwhile neglecting the AQ leadership holed up near the Pakistan border because putting too much pressure on Musharraf would be teh awkward."

I remember who attacked us on 9/11. Do you?

I want to comment on Rod's point 4, which I was puzzled with. Did you ever really believe that cultural and civilizational problems could be solved by force alone? If you did believe that, you were way out of touch with the rest of opinion in the West. Very few are the number of people I've heard profess that might makes right. Is point 4 an accurate statement of your former beliefs Rod?
At the same time, force is what the various Muslim factions use as their M.O. to control these societies. Force is the whole thing, and if it wasn't there, people in these nations would quickly cast Islam aside. We're left with the question of how we do interface with the Muslim culture that devoutly believes in the rightness of jihad, and also believes in the Quranic prohibition of making peace agreements with people of other religions, who are called infidels. How do tolerant societies interface with intolerant societies if the military option is off the table? Do we pay them not to be barbaric, as Europe recently did to stop the Bulgarian nurses from being executed in Libya? Do we become dhimmi's, but disguise it as foreign aid?
You say you are becoming more cynical. If so, have you come to realize that force is precisely the mechanism by which power has been wielded throughout history? Even here in the U.S.A., is paying your income tax optional? No, you are forced to pay it. This is how the world works, as far as i can see. And, this is what makes Christianity such a radical proposition. Jesus asks His followers to give up their claims to power, to love their enemies. It's the most radical philosophy ever proposed, and most Christians have not been able to hit the mark.

I'm somewhat surprised that anyone could could be surprised at the strength of simplistic nationalism in the USA. A belief in American exceptionalism is one of most predominant traits in our society. It can be observed in how we view just about every activity and institution in the country. Tommy Franks is the greatest general in history for using the most powerful military in the history of the world to defeat a fourth rate army in a minor colonial war. We have the greatest healthcare system in the world, despite the fact it costs twice as much as everyone elses and deliver much less. The list is endless but these two examples will do. Of course Bush, Rove and company understood this entirely and when we suffered a very nasty attack from muslim fundamentalists in 2001, it was of course the "greatest" attack ever sustained by any society, they mobilized every weapon of hyperpole, simplified nationalism, and scaremongering to whip up a huge wave of emotion that lost all sight of perspective and good judgement. They were ably assisted in this endeavor by the press, ever eager for copy, and many democrats anxious not to be outflanked in the nationalism stakes. Then of course there were also the neocons whose principal agenda is Israel and who saw this as a means of strengthening the position of our client state in the middle east. Of course anyone with a dimes knowledge of history knows that religion and nationalism are the two major man made sources of human catastrophe but that wasn't about to get in the way of the American people in their righteous might, they even threw in a little religion to richen the brew. This was a "crusade." The result was the development of a set of policy initiatives which were amongst the stupidest in the history of this great country and have largely proved counter productive domestically, and far more importantly, internationally. They took two serious but manageable regional problems (contain Hussein and Islamic fundamentalism and its weapon terrorism) and by conflating them created a global debacle for US interests. This is a debacle which will take years to eraze and in the meantime of course our global rivals have taken advantage to our predicament. Clearly the current administration is never going to volutarily withdraw from Iraq. To do so would be an admission of total failure. Their strategy seems to be to run out the clock pass on the problem and then, particularly if its a democrat, blame the next president for embracing one of what will be an ugly set of options. Several historians in the twenties pointed out that German foreign policy before WW 1 was essentially dictated by domestic politics. This is surely true of the last five years and one of the main culprits is the simplistic nationalism so beloved of most Americans. Most societies are nationalistic to a degree. Most of them have been burned enough times to be very wary of oversimplifications and jingoism. Unfortunately, America has not yet taken on board that simple lesson. Perhaps someone like the great General Franks has to take on a real enemy like the North Koreans or Chinese for the lesson to be learned.

JFK gave us the Bay of Pigs debacle

Actually the CIA gave us the Bay of Pigs debacle, which was largely planned during the waning days of the Eisenhower Administration and handed off to JFK.

barrybar:

Ok, I don't want you to think I'm calling you a bad parent (or whatever your point was with that). I'll just ask you: are you a left-winger on most issues?

Tim:

"Ann Coulter never incited violence? You don't remember her saying we should bomb whoever was responsible for 9/11, kill their leaders, invade their countries and convert them all to Christianity?"

Yes, she did say that. In fact we did bomb people who were responsible for 9/11, we did kill their leaders, we did invade their country, and converting them to Christianity is looking more appealing each day. However, if you really think that this happened because she "incited" it, I'd say you have an overinflated sense of her importance. Relax.

David White:

Is it your contention that JFK knew nothing about the Bay of Pigs and had nothing to do with the refusal to provide critical air support?

So for those who are not disillusioned, when is that groundswell of active duty enlistments going to occur?

David White:

Is it your contention that JFK knew nothing about the Bay of Pigs and had nothing to do with the refusal to provide critical air support?

No, it's my contention that JFK, as a young, inexperienced president new to the office, was willing to trust that the CIA and other established government agencies and advisers knew what they were doing and was therefore willing to give the green light to an operation that had been planned largely before he took office.

The problem with the Bay of Pigs was not the "refusal the provide critical air support". The problem was the whole half-assed idea to begin with. And that was mainly cooked up before JFK came into office.

I'm no apologist for JFK; I've never understood my mother's near hero-worship of the man. But although the Bay of Pigs occurred on his watch, the main responsibility for it lies with the CIA and with the Eisenhower Administration.

Barrybar:

Not bad, you made it one whole paragraph before you went into the whole "Blame America First" spiel. My point stands.

David White:

"The problem with the Bay of Pigs was not the "refusal the provide critical air support". The problem was the whole half-assed idea to begin with. And that was mainly cooked up before JFK came into office."

Half-assed? Call me crazy, but I think that Ike knew a thing or two about amphibious operations. Try Googling "D-Day" and let me know how that goes for you.

"As long as we're slinging nasty generalizations, I'll just point out that a refusal to acknowledge the flaws and failings within one's own country is the sort of attitude encouraged by totalitarianism."

I hate to argue semantics, but it's more like "chauvinism".

So let me try to understand what you're saying:

Sanctions were good but improperly supervised and the invasion of Iraq was correct but mismanaged. Is that how you feel?

turning off bold

I wouldn't ask if I didn't care. I'm a people person!

Although I do have to wonder why I'm discussing this particular thing with you when I focused my comments at barrybar in the first place.

Are you saying that we should stop the war and re-institute the sanction? Let me give you my take on you: rats jumping the ship. You waited almost four years , hundreds of thousands of deaths, hundreds of billions of dollars, and a total destruction of a country that was no threat to us, to say: Oops! I am sorry, I made an error. Do you have any shame? Compassion? A heart?

Re: From Michael Peterson above

"Our nation was founded on the predicate that freedom is not free and that the maintenance of liberal democracy is a constant fight against our totalitarian impulses."

vs.

"The administration has predicated its Middle-East policy on the truth that the desire of every human for freedom is universal and, that given the right conditions, freedom will flourish."

Uh, when reading this, do I detect not "breathtaking naivity" but breathtaking illogic? The one thing I hope for on this blog is coherent lucidity. Now I'm so disappointed...

barrybar:

Why don't you just click on the link that says "Read All Comments"?

I would be disappointed if you missed me calling you a leftist even once.

We went into Iraq with assumptions and little ground knowledge.

After several false starts, the US decided that it was bringing democracy to Iraq. Much blood could have been saved by asking one simple question: Is their an indigenous democratic movement in Iraq? I would also say, that the Iraqis would be generally well informed enough to make those decisions long before we showed.

Now we sit there saying we fear a civil war or genocide, fears consciously manipulated by the locals so we will stay and they can milk us. A lot of the milk goes to support the terrorists who are killing our people.

Perhaps a quick hit and a clean break would have been a better course of action.

PS -- Since, as you say, Eisenhower "knew a thing or two about amphibious operations," maybe he should have shared some of that expertise with the people planning the Bay of Pigs. Of course, from what I've read, the CIA didn't necessarily make much of an effort to ask him.

Ron Paul is the only hope for this ignorant country.

Well, well another neocon turd comes full circle.

I'll rub it in your face point by point...

1. what false "emotion are you talking about 'war passion'..find yourself a Jeff Gannon
2. You actually trusted Govt and Military pre-Iraq War...my God have you NEVER spoken to a veteran - EVER? Find yourself a grandpa

3. You no longer believe the Republican Party is superior in foreign policy judgment to the Democrats? You ACTUALLY THINK THERE IS A DIFFERENCE? - You live in an artificial TV Universe... stop watching tv.

4. You actually believed deep cultural and civilizational problems could be soved through force alone?... you need to ACTUALLY READ 'THE RISE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE' - instead of continuing to pretend you have.

5. oh, Yeah, I hear you, I agree
I'm glad you've come back around toward humanity.....

Well Rod, if you're ready for the next step, youtube or google "7 WTC". And then wikipedia "false flag." And then have a drink, you'll need it.

I am really tired of the "blame America first" label. As a citizen of the US, I have the right and the duty to attend to what the government is doing in my name, on my money, and for my supposed benefit. This is a democracy, which makes all its citizens responsible for what it does. When my kid does something wrong, I will deal with that first and most intensely, no matter what the other kids in the neighborhood are doing which may be even worse. They're not my business; my kid is. Similarly, I don't care how bad the other nations of the world are. They aren't my business, but the US is.