You missed some :

The stupid-cons: Corrupt pro-Bush hacks who insist that things are hunky-dory and the problems are due to either media bias - instapundit - or John Kerry - Mickey Kaus.

Somebody need to take a chill pill. I simply do not think the infighting between conservatives is all that important. We are doing quite well in Iraq. The coalition merely must not lose its nerve. To be blunt: we might be our own worst enemies! The normal state of affairs is to get overly excited about every bit of bad news instead of looking at the larger picture. By all rights, Americans should be astonished on what we have accomplished in so little time. This gloom and doom rhetoric is getting ridiculous. Apparently some people haven’t studied much history. Thank God they weren’t around during the Civil War and WWII.

One of the things I can't help noticing about history is that there's a lot more to it than the American Civil War and WWII.

There are a few who didn't buy the WMD claims as well as "democratization":

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail296.html#Cochran

I used to think they were nuts, but their stock has definitely gone way up with me.

“One of the things I can't help noticing about history is that there's a lot more to it than the American Civil War and WWII.”

OK, you can inform us of even one war that was prosecuted perfectly. Just one? You can do that, can’t you? I read a large number of publications and view hours of TV news and talking heads. Why is it that I’m reaching the exact opposite conclusion than the “the world is coming to an end” crowd? The reason may be that I simply do not consider the major media as my primary news sources. Also, I tell myself to wait another week to see how things look at that time. The vastly exaggerated Iraqi prison scandal is an excellent example of what I’m talking about. We now find out that this was the exception, and not the norm. This story deserves to be placed on the back pages. It is not worthy of front page coverage. And yet, a number of folks are still freaking out.

DT,

Are you really that blind? Is the cool-aid really taht strong? Almost 95% of the things that have gone wrong in Iraq were predicted well before the war, and by very qualified people in the GOVERNMENT. Qualified people were ignored and unexperienced idealogical hacks ran the show. And surprise, surprise we have a mess! Its one thing if Rummy and Co, listened to these people, planned for what they said, and still stuff went bad. But thats not what happened. The arrogant bastards ignored everything to the contrary and did things their way, and screwed up royally.

Anyway,b ack to the good nnews from Iraq!

The dust does seem to be settling. Rasmussen’s daily tracking polls indicate that President Bush is starting to put the bad news behind him:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm

Oh well, we should have a clearer picture by next week. I still predict that John Kerry will look like a very weak candidate before the Democrat convention. The most recent Fox poll, even after all this bad news, still has President Bush winning the election with 290 electoral votes.

“And surprise, surprise we have a mess!”

I reject your premise. We have problems, but they are manageable. Iraq is overall a far better place than a year ago. The various religious leaders seem to want to go along with the program to establish democracy. The economy is growing by leaps and bounds.

By the way, speaking of liberal bias in the news. What is happening with the peculiar statements by Senator Ernest Hollings concerning Israel? Why the overall silence? Can I get a witness? Why aren’t the media asking John Kerry for a response?

I have to agree with DT on this one - there were many predictions by many people, both in and out of government, as to what would happen, both during and after the war. Cherry-picking which ones turned out to be accurate after the fact (and ignoring the ones that weren't) may be a gratifying, but seems pretty useless going forward. What's more important is that we show the flexibility to adjust our operations and goals, both militarily and politically, to meet these changing situations. Militarily, it seems we're doing just that - Fallujah and the way we are handling Sadr strike me as quite sophisticated attempts to deflate the two respective uprisings. Politically, I'm not so sure yet. It seems that we're looking for an easy way out when there really is none...

I flummoxed by those who think that the solution was more troops. First, if reports are to be believed, a significant problem is that there are too many troops from the Iraqi perspective. Second, even if we ignore that, more troops from where? We've been told since the beginning (and certainly not by the administration) that the army has been stretched too thin to conduct this campaign and maintain its other commitments, particularly the kind of troops (MP's and others who operate in a civilian context) that are most needed. I had to laugh when I read that some guy who had worked for the CPA was disenchanted with the way things were going, saying we needed at least double the number of troops. Unless he was thinking of the UN (good for another laugh), he was smoking something.

I want the people who are having second thoughts about invading Iraq on the belief that it is being "managed" badly to at least think through, and I mean really think through, the alternatives on how it could be managed well.

Judging by the categories and the comments I have read here, David Thomson is in a class by himself.

David. Let's admit there is some decent reconstruction work being done. That said, how are any of today's policies leading to a better tomorrow in Iraq? Something, please, beyond, buck up and don't freak out...

(C'mon. Even Brian Lamb doesn't ask easier questions than this...)

I think we have evidence here of where the streams of thought will eventually converge: "It was all the liberals' fault."

David,

Your analogies with other wars would be more apt if we had a president who was willing to do the right things to make our Iraq efforts work - ie to make the hard sacrifices that must be made to achieve our stated goals. Unfortunately, Bush is not willing to adjust his strategies, as that could hamper his electability, so we're leaving Iraq in a mess. And perhaps more importantly, we've absolutely murdered our future influence re nation building. The world has watched us fall flat on our faces - an opinion shared by a great many of our current and former military leaders. This bodes very poorly indeed for future endeavours.

I mean, come on, it's barely six weeks 'til June 30, and we don't even know who we're handing the country over to.

We rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein several years after we foisted him on the same nation. Both actions will be our only real accomplishments. Next year, Iraq will be divided into three separate entities, Kurd, Sunni, Shiite, with each made secure by it's own militia groups. Democracy will prevail in each area according to the dictates of the particular gun barrels. Hopefully, the money we leave behind will provide some relief.

Zakaria a paleo? That's news to me. I thought he was more of a "classical" liberal hawk/neocon.

What am I missing?

...quite sophisticated attempts to deflate the two respective uprisings.

Besides deciding to call our enemies "friends", I don't see much insurrection deflation.

Okay, where do _we_ fit? I mean, those of us who see Iraq as the warm-up for picking off the next domino ... maybe Syria, maybe Iran. Eventually, and regardless -- Saudia Arabia.

re: Cherry picking predictions

While it is true that hindsight is 20/20, I fail to see *any* correct predictions that were adopted by the Bush administration and sold to the American people. It's not that Bush's critics are selectively admonishing him. It's that the president is paid to pick the best strategy out of a grab-bag of possible ones, and has consistently failed to do so. By any measure (except for hacks, I suppose), the Iraq war has been a monumental failure of leadership on the part of the Bush administration.

“Your analogies with other wars would be more apt if we had a president who was willing to do the right things to make our Iraq efforts work...”

A hypothetically perfect candidate is not available. The choice is between President Bush and wishy-washy John Kerry. A Democrat candidate has to be a dishonest pacifist. The liberal wing will not permit anything else. Kerry is trying to be all things to all people. George W. Bush doesn’t do this. There is a line that he will not cross. Senator Kerry, on the other hand, will flip-flop on a dime. The man has no core values. I will tell you one thing that really impressed me about the President. Turkey would not allow us to invade from the north. Everyone knew that this was very bad news. Still, President Bush did not hesitate. What would Kerry have done?

show me a country that enjoys being occupied. The Iraqis hate us, for good reason. Being not-Saddam isn't nearly enough.

David Thomson must be a caricature.

Pouncer - that is, and always was, purest fantasy

Okay, where do _we_ fit? I mean, those of us who see Iraq as the warm-up for picking off the next domino ... maybe Syria, maybe Iran. Eventually, and regardless -- Saudia Arabia.

You should fit your ass into a pair of combat boots.

What about the "stab-in-the-back" faction (and sorry I can't translate that into German)? That is the one that actually worries me - they seem to be working on setting up their story line over the last few weeks.

Cranky

I seriously doubt we'll see an Iraq partitioned into 3 countries.

What we'll likely see is Kurds ceding from the North, and a very nervous Turkey putting serious pressure on the US for assistance in curbing the Kurds, lest Kurdistan extend all the way to the ocean (otherwise, the Kurds are screwed, like the Afghans, because their homeland is LandLocked, which consigns them to pretty much eternal economic servitude).

Then the Shiites will end up in a shooting war with the Sunnis over the remainder of Iraq. They will no doubt turn to Iran for assistance, and thus, Iran will extend across the Shatt Al Arab, and encompass Baghdad, forcing the Sunnis, if they survive, into the central and western Iraqi desert, also LandLocked. Perhaps the Sunnis will end up the victims of genocide?

In any case - an Iraqi civil war is a dang scary thought.

The two alternatives:
- put Saddam back in power - he's the man for the job of brutally supressing and controlling these three independent ethic groups.
- Try to force-feed them a democratic coalition government. Yeah, right. Dream on.

I'm with David on this one.
Dan, you missed me in there. As close as you come is this:

"The Standard Neocons: Dude, Where's My Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy?" Cared more about democracy-building than WMD but are flummoxed by the Bush/Rumsfeld insistence on insufficient troops strength, suspecting that this is due to an aversion to casualties that impairs the mission (William Kristol, Robert Kagan, David Brooks, Andrew Sullivan, and yes, Daniel Drezner

So apparently, you and I are fairly close. Where I differ is the number of boots on the ground needed for the task.

I figure the need for greater numbers is only true if you take as gospel the reports coming to us from the mainstream press as regards the successes being had over there. Now what reason would the press have to mislead us on this point, particularly in an election year, when the current officeholder isn't a liberal?

David,
It's perfectly simple. "Democrat" is a noun. "Democratic" is an adjective. When the word modifies a noun, you use "Democratic", as in "Democratic party" or "Democratic candidate".

Notice how Thomson switched from Iraq to Bush's polls? I'm far from non-partisan, but to me what's happening in Iraq is worthy of independent discussion in and of itself.

"Why is it that I’m reaching the exact opposite conclusion than the “the world is coming to an end” crowd? The reason may be that I simply do not consider the major media as my primary news sources.":

My guess is that he's guided by voices.

If Christ returned to earth, David would immediately explain why Bush should get the credit for it.

I go nut's when people say Kerry Flip-Flops:

Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.
Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.
Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.
Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against
them again. Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders
(fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't. Bush first says the U.S. won't
negotiate with North Korea. Now he will Bush said the "mission
accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was
his advance team. etc etc etc....

I think DT has made some valid points. There is an old saying about baseball that also applies to war and politics-- "You're never as bad as you look on your worst day, and you're never as good as you look on your best day."

I never really understood the infatuation with Chalabi, but I know enough about GWB and his inner circle to know that the first time he said something critical about U. S. policy in Iraq, somebody (probably with the initials KR) got out the grease and headed for the skids. The fact that it took a few months for anything overt to happen is simply going to be shown to be a reflection of how thorough the planning has been-- a Frist aide (I live in Tennessee) told me over Easter that Chalabi was toast.

Aside from the fact that I thought David Thomson just yesterday was endorsing the idea that it is hard to tell how things are going in Iraq in the big picture, yet today asserting that things are going well, I have a few comments for him:

1. You evidently do not know what the word "pacifist" means.

2. For someone so attuned to the idea of a liberal media bias, it is simply stunning to see you rotely repeat what are nothing more than RNC-Fox News talking points on John Kerry.

3.You say these things take time. You miss the fact that we do not have that much time. June 30 is soon. And in light of that fast-approaching deadline, decisions continue to be made that are manifestly bad decisions promising harder times, such as Bremer's decision to not attempt to disarm the militias.

4. It remains difficult to know how things are going overall. But it is a mistake to simply dismiss any attention to the troubles as exceptional news being trumped up out of proportion by the liberal media. Quite frankly, this is the same attitude that led the DoD to pay no attention to the recommendations before the war of anyone who was not fully ideologically on board. Hindsight may be 20-20, but it remains the fact that there were people emphasizing the need for various kinds of post-war planning that the neocons simply dismissed as actors in bad faith.

Cranky Observer,

The German word you're looking for is
dolchstoss

General Abizaid just told the Senate committee yesterday that he thinks we'll need more troops, especially after the June 30th "transition." Clearly Abizaid is neither liberal nor a member of the press. His interest lies in providing safe transit along the major trade routes from Kuwait and Jordon. Our troops are running out of everything.

I think this move against Chalabi is evidence of more pushback by the uniformed military against their civilian masters.

First we had the pullback in Fallujah with the Wolfowitz gang running around not knowing what was going on. This decision was made on the ground in Iraq, by the Marines, not the political CPA.

Second, we saw the Abu Ghraib photos, and all the leaks to Sy Hersh from within the military. Yes, it will end some military careers and do some short-term damage to the uniformed military. But it also further undermined the Rummy crowd, who are doing long term institutional damage to the military.

Now we have the uniformed military going after the Rummy crowd's "silver bullet" in Iraq: Chalabi.

We are witnessing factional war within our own government as the regime starts to implode.

OK, you can inform us of even one war that was prosecuted perfectly. Just one?

The request makes no sense. Just because every war prosecution is imperfect doesn't mean every imperfect war prosecution represents success. Actually, about half of all imperfect war prosecutions represent failure. That's what happens when you have two sides.

Alan S:

Everything I saw suggested the marines wanted to reduce Fallujah to rubble,and it was Washington that set up the Fallujah arrangement.

Most of Sy's sources were "former" military and intelligence. he said only about 5 or 6 were current. And those probably were people in Washington,not the work-a-day soldier in Iraq.

Chalabi has been double-crossing his sponsors sice he returned to Iraq. The Bush types prize loyalty above all else. So my thought on he Chalabi search was "what took so long?"

In other words, the "regime" may be crumbling, as you say, but these aren't the signs.

"I have to agree with DT on this one - there were many predictions by many people, both in and out of government, as to what would happen, both during and after the war. Cherry-picking which ones turned out to be accurate after the fact (and ignoring the ones that weren't) may be a gratifying, but seems pretty useless going forward. What's more important is that we show the flexibility to adjust our operations and goals, both militarily and politically, to meet these changing situations."

Whether you're fighting a war, or building a bridge, it's a good idea to have some idea of what might go wrong, and figure out ahead of time what you might do about it.

The State Department did exactly that sort of contingency planning for the occupation stage of this little adventure. Needless to say, some of the contingencies they had plans for didn't come up. Is that somehow a strike against their planning? Hell, no; just as a certain number of things are going to go wrong, no matter how superb your planning and execution, a certain number of things will go right, no matter how bad you are. (Even the 1962 Mets won 40 games.) But they did plan for many contingencies that indeed have come up, that the CPA seemed to mostly try to wing its way through.

Hell, there's never been a clear plan to get from the toppling of Saddam's statue to a democratic Iraq that took into account the fundamental problem of Iraq's division into Sunni Arabs, Shiites, and Kurds. One Iraq? Three? Loose federation? (And in the last two cases, whose part of Iraq is Baghdad in?) "We wouldn't dream of telling the Iraqis how to deal with that," was the White House line. (But we'd tell them to privatize, have a flat tax, have no barriers to foreign investment, etc., etc.) "And anyone who believes THEY can't solve that problem, even though WE won't even propose possible ways to deal with it, is a racist."

The closest we came to a plan was a process, but process can't create solutions out of thin air.

Appalled,

I don't know where you got your news on Fallujah, but it was clear to the rest of the world that the CPA and Washington didn't know what the hell was going on. Even as the pullback was taking place, and being reported on by reporters on the ground, Washington was denying it.

Yeah, Dougy! I don't know how any honest individual can call Kerry a flip-flopper (which he very well may be) without applying the same to Bush. Here's the point, they are politicians, they are supposed to represent us. If our priorities change, theirs should change to match.

Stories like this, Alan (excuse my borrowing the freeper site...)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1126946/posts

DT,

I'd be very interested to know specifically what you think is going so well in Iraq?

This is from testimony to the Senate yesterday about the Most Important War Ever.

"I believe we are absolutely on the brink of failure. We are looking into the abyss," General Joseph Hoar, a former commander in chief of US central command, told the Senate foreign relations committee.

...

Larry Diamond, an analyst at the conservative Hoover Institution, said: "I think it's clear that the United States now faces a perilous situation in Iraq.

General Hoar was equally scathing about the calibre of the Bush administration.

"The policy people in both Washington and Baghdad," he said, "have demonstrated their inability to do a job on a day-to-day basis this past year."

No hurry, figure out how to discredit another top official.

And how is the administrations failure to gain international support (Turkey)an asset to your man GW?

> "Almost 95% of the things that have gone wrong in Iraq were predicted well before the war, and by very qualified people in the GOVERNMENT."

Yawn. It reminds me of a comment made once about the Washinton Post's economic reporter (Lawrence Tribe?) -- that he successfully predicted twelve out of the last two recessions.

I can assure you that, if a Republican is in charge, there are going to be thousands of predictions of catastrophe, and they'll be all over the spectrum. The left-wing methodology is to wait until after the fact, pick out the ones that came true, and then TURN THE VOLUME UP TO ELEVEN!!!!!!!!

You begin to get a feel for these things as you notice that the criteria for success begin with having a Democrat in office. Clinton was president for eight years prior to 9/11, but the issue became whether Bush had done enough in eight months to avert 9/11. Clinton's the guy who bombed an aspirin plant for allegedly manufacturing WMD, but Bush is the one faulted for listening to bogus intel reports.

That makes it easy. Democrat -- good. Republican -- bad. It's nice to finally have foreign relations figured out.

Is David Thompson a fox news "reporter"?

thelrd in TEXAS

Thanks to BG above, who posted what exactly what I was thinking.

Well, Mr. Thompson, why didn't the "liberal" media report that testimony to the Senate? Go to the NY Times webpage and search for the Hoar or Diamond testimony -- nothing, zip, nada. You have to go overseas, where, strangely, they think it's worth reporting.

I've never before so clearly seen a case of "shoot the messenger." For more than a year, Bush's poll numbers were buoyed by a media that can only be described as fawning. Gosh, yes, Mr. Bush, sure we'll embed reporters. And, yes, when you tell us you found a weapons truck, we'll report that straight (Judith Miller, anyone?)

When, suddenly, the media starts reporting negative news, bursting the bubble they helped create, there is a great wailing and gnashing of teeth.

The sense of entitlement to positive coverage is just stunning.

"I can assure you that, if a Republican is in charge ...

Seems to me that especially for partisan Republicans, Bush's ineptness should be a grave concern.

Maybe it's better that a rabid base keep him so completely out of touch that he lose a crucial 5% of swing voters by his incalcitrance.

David Thomson:

If and when, God forbid, any American POWs are forced to wear women's underwear on their heads, forced to stick their fingers into their anuses and then smell it, masturbate with hoods on their heads in front of cameras, and be raped or even murdered by their interrogators, will you continue to assert that such actions are really not a big deal?

Shorter David Thomson: "Even as bad as things may be getting in Iraq, the only thing that really matters is that Dubya gets re-elected."

Thank you, David Thomson, for putting the "tunnel" into "tunnel vision."

Dan Drezner asked:
Who will be the last neo-neocon standing?

Why, David Thompson of course. You should be proud to have him hanginig around your blog as the one true believer who won't be shaken no matter how big the mountain of evidence to the contrary gets.

"The stupid-cons: Corrupt pro-Bush hacks who insist that things are hunky-dory and the problems are due to either media bias - instapundit - or John Kerry - Mickey Kaus."

Count me stupid. I think the worst has passed and that the Belmont Club has been very insightful. We'll see. It is obvious that Bush may have to get jettisoned to right this media nightmare. Fine, Kerry's position on Iraq differs mostly in style versus substance.

I'm not worried about adding troups. Can we sustain the levels we have?

By the Order of Euloga, we shall succeed. :)

Comical Ali has nothing on David Thomson. I bet he even has a natty beret, too.

The most significant breakage here, I think, is Kristol and his ilk. They may be ideologues, but they know a clusterfuck when they see it. That they're crowbarring themselves away from the Bush camp right now shows that they don't want to be remembered as the 'intellectual' originators of that policy.

Which means that to retain a degree of 'ideological consistency', the White House is now left dealing with the neo-neos. And I do think that it's right to say that if the neo-neos pick Chalabi over Bush, the White House will be left looking rather threadbare in support.

Colin Powell appears to be exacting some sweet, sweet revenge behind the scenes, too.

As someone who opposed the war from the start for pracitical reasons and a lack of faith in Bush's leadership, very little that has occurred has surprised me (except the prison stuff, that really surprised me). The vast majority of actual experts on the region and/or military affairs knew this would be a much bigger commitment than Bush was ready to make, and they told us (including generals Zinni and Shinseki).

Liberals like me made all these practical arguments, we didn't effect policy at all, and no liberals have actually had power to effect the actions of this administration.

However, I fully expect conservatives at the end of all this to SOMEHOW point out that this was OUR fault.

Thanks guys, in advance.

As for predictions David Thomson was predicting a few weeks back that Bush would be up by 8 now.

Oh well.

About as accurate as Wolfowitz on Iraq.

MDtoMN: you still see OP/ED pieces blaming Vietnam on the peaceniks, so there's nothing too surprising about it.

I'm with you about the lead-up to the war, but democracy and other moralistic issues aside, the reason for staying in Iraq has to do with survival. Unlike the Viet Cong, al Qaeda doesn't stay within faraway borders.

If Bush wins and calls for a draft, the country will go nuts, but Kerry might be able to do only if he can line up a serious coalition of European troops.

"’I believe we are absolutely on the brink of failure. We are looking into the abyss,’ General Joseph Hoar, a former commander in chief of US central command, told the Senate foreign relations committee.”

General Joseph Hoar has always been against invading Iraq. He idiotically believes that the problem of nihilistic Islamism is greatly due to the belief that “the U.S. has unjustly supported Israel over the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people.”

DT,

Even Dubya admits you can succeed with success, not failure. Why can't you?

"I'm hopeful. I know there is a lot of ambition in Washington, obviously. But I hope the ambitious realize that they are more likely to succeed with success as opposed to failure."

—Dubya Interview with the Associated Press, Jan. 18, 2001

“As for predictions David Thomson was predicting a few weeks back that Bush would be up by 8 now.”

Oh gosh darn it, I guess I will merely have to settle for the excellent news in the just released poll by the Fox News sponsored Opinion Dynamics polling organization:

http://www.foxnews.com/polls/

President Bush is up by six percentage points over Senator Kerry in the crucial seventeen battleground states! In other words, even with all the recent bad press, the President would easily win the required electoral college votes.

"The left-wing methodology is to wait until after the fact, pick out the ones that came true, and then TURN THE VOLUME UP TO ELEVEN!!!!!!!!"

It seems you have a case of selective amnesia.

I recall we were being called traitors and America haters early last year when we did speak up.

Jor,

Are you really that blind? ... Almost 95% of the things that have gone wrong in Iraq were predicted well before the war,

My problem isn't with that, it's with your implication that, if only we had done something differently, all these problems would have been avoided and no other problems would have arisen in their place. It's regarding that latter, laughable assertion that I would gladly join David Thompson in asking, "Can you inform us of even one war that was prosecuted perfectly?"

So by all means, let's have an intellectually honest discussion about what we should be doing, and how we are doing. But sorry, saying "They aren't doing anything right" about folks who (mirabile dictu!) just happen to be your political opponents isn't credible.

> My problem isn't with that, it's with
> your implication that, if only we had
> done something differently, all these
> problems would have been avoided and no
> other problems would have arisen in
> their place.

First, the Bush Administration didn't just ignore single pieces of analysis about the postwar situation in Iraq: it ignored entire contingency plans from the Army and State Department, including the decision trees which showed Path C5 to be taken if B7 fails, etc.

Second, it really doesn't matter. The Bush Administration is totally and without exception responsible for the outcome of the invasion of Iraq.

Cranky

"A Democrat candidate has to be a dishonest pacifist."

I think Mr. Thomson's bias is more than clear enough. No objective opinion will be forthcoming from him.

I don't care what one's political background is. It's more than clear even to the neocons that things are a mess in Iraq. "Wait and see and it will get better" with no answers as to *how* that will happen is a pipe dream. The US has lost all moral authority, has become a sad shadow of itself to most of the world, and you stand there telling me wait and see how it gets better?

Get a frickin' clue.

DT and associated wingnuts, You want us to "wait and see" and "trust" the people who are in charge right now. Did you bother reading what Dan wrote? At one point in time the idiots in charge wanted Chalabi in power. They wanted to hand Iraq to him. This is a guy that is on the verge of being arrested. He openly admits he lied to the idiots at OSP about Iraqi WMD (read a damn newspaper sometime). He with-held info on a major terrorist attack. And there's much much more.

Dan Drezner, even if standard neo-cons & the neo-imperialists merge in the academic/media worlds, its clear that its goignt o have no effect electorally. Wingnuts like DT will preach the Bush gospel no matter what. Thats because you know, as well as everyone else, It would have been way harder to sell a war to democratize Iraq. What would it have polled @ 10%? The people in America who support this war think its some how related to terrorism (75% of war supporters think there is an Al Queda link 50% think stock piles of WMD have been found). So much for "liberal media bias".

What about us truly crusty paleocons and realcons?

1. We always favored disposing of Saddam Hussein on the grounds of expediency
2. We never believed Iraq had WMD and probably only had residual WMD labs
3. We always or relatively quickly opposed the war on the grounds that Bush and co. would screw it up

As classical paleoconservatives and realcons we also believe in absolute standards and personal accountibility.

As such we refuse to accept the line that well a Democrat might do it worse, well he might. But this level of incompetency is unacceptable from a Republican.

As for our "liberal" news sources that tell us things are getting worse - it's POTUS GWB himself. On a legislative meeting on the hill, he told them to expect things to get worse.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5022906/

"Several GOP lawmakers who attended the meeting said Bush told his audience to brace for more violence after June 30, and he predicted insurgents would try to disrupt subsequent elections."

e.g. the security situation is deteriorating and not improving.

This doesn't mean that we can't get through this, but imagining that things are getting better isn't even a line that the POTUS is spreading anymore.

Ok, after all the jabbering, sit back and let me give you the absolute truth.

;-)

I'm a big Bush-man, currently gritting my teeth and suckin' it in.

But look, the Republican convention is 8 weeks after the turnover. The election is five months after. For that entire time, the Iraqis will know that it IS their government, and they may really have only once real chance to have a better future than the one they have had for 30 years. Much of Mr. Bush's octane runs on faith, not just in God, but in America AND in free people.

So IF, yes IF.... Iraq changes for the better after the turnover, Bush will be seen as more visionary, courageous, and stoic (God help us all, the USA needs "stoic" more than any other trait there is... all of us.) than even CONSERVATIVE intellectuals and pundits, not to mention the ones that hate him. (Meanwhile, economy continues rising as it is.)

Will it happen? If not, Bush will probably lose. That's that. If so, he not only will have heroic stature, he will have earned it.

Damn it

Last sentence -

Will it happen? If not, Bush will probably lose. That's that.

BBut if it Does Happen that way, he not only will have heroic stature, he will have earned it.

DT,

You are beginning to sound desperate.

I suggest you look at the polls more carefully.

Oldman writes As for our "liberal" news sources that tell us things are getting worse - it's POTUS GWB himself. On a legislative meeting on the hill, he told them to expect things to get worse.

And I respond, with tongue firmly in cheek...

Why does George Bush Hate America? Doesn't he know that speaking the truth about this war will only further the aims of our enemy? Is he hoping that we shall fail?

It's bad enough we're following the same stupid policies that led us into Vietnam, what I find patently intolerable is that we're also seeing the same stupid rhetoric. Perhaps that is the side effect of electing Presidents from Texas.

Obviously, yes, the neocons stick with Chalabi. How else can they claim a knife in the back (a la Weimar Germany) if they don't maintain a critical point of contradistinction with the botch the Bush Administration has made of things in Iraq? "If only we had been listened to," etc., etc. (Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol are writing the script right now as we speak. They are preparing their intellectual defense now to maintain viability for the next war.)

The neocons (especially Chalabi neocons) are the most ignorant, mulish, belligerent, conniving, cowardly, unpatriotic shams imaginable. Think Duke and Dauphin from Huckleberry Finn and you've got a pretty good idea of what we're dealing with here. And the worst of it is, they gull idealists like David Brooks and Andrew Sullivan and Thomas Friedman with their half-baked slurry of wishful thinking.

Below is a letter I sent to David Brooks not too long past that goes to the heart of the matter on how the "neocon idealism" has gone awry not by the botch the president has made of things, but by its own fallacious premise:

"Mr. Brooks, you have shame sitting on one shoulder and guilt is weighing down the other. I do not envy your position.

"Leave it to the arrogant intellectuals to finally learn through horror what was obvious to anyone who wasn't a fatuous narrow-minded ass to begin with. Leave it to the intellectuals to fail not because they lack boldness but judgment.

"This has been a disgusting and eminently avoidable disaster in Iraq. And sadly, you sir, have played a significant role in it all. Unipolar rubes like yourself and others in the punditocracy have emboldened and abetted and trafficked in the radical theories of our latter-day "best and brightest" neoconservatives (more rightly labeled neoradicals, I should think; oh, but to hear Charles Krauthammer lecture us all just once more about the *uniqueness* of our unrivaled power, and not just now but ever! oh, the unconditional joy that brought to a neocon's faith-based heart, do you remember how it was, David? how we all smiled knowingly at one another, especially when Charles sneared into the microphone in that snarky supercilious way of his; oh, just think, the tragi-comic irony to hear it all again).

"The only truly beneficial outcome of all of this incompetence and waste and horror that we are seeing on display in Iraq now is this: with unlimited power and influence at their disposal, the neoradical agenda has been utterly repudiated, and not by precious arguments and fey opposition, mind, but by the cold clear logic of its ruthless and diligent application in the real world. (As though the Iraqis would not object to an expatriot -- and a duplicitious bastard at that -- absent for 40 years from Iraq suddenly "coming home" triumphantly and running the country at the behest of the invading army; oh yes, that is a stellar bit of thinking there, guys, and just think: it only took a squander year to mulishly prove the obvious.)

"Iraq was your test lab, and you boys and girls got everything you asked for. So congratulations. In your vainglorious attempts to disprove Gen. George C. Marshall and 50 years of sane and successful foreign policy, you have now lit a fire under the smoldering ammunition dump of Islamist fascism. Nice work, guys. The counterproductive stupidity of neoconservatism seemingly knows no bounds. But hey, it sounded like a good idea at the time, right?

"And in so doing, you have proved a point (though not the one you were hoping to establish): Neoconservativism may now join communism on the ignoble ash-heap of history.

"And just think: you got to sing in the chorus line, too."

How about the right-from-the-start conservatives at The American Conservative?

Andrew, I'll take those odds.

If the Iraqis forge, out of a nebulous sovereignty in a tri-partite state rife with suicidal brigands and three weapons for every man, woman & child amid conveys of American troops, while we do little else but hope for the best & blame the press, hell, I'll vote for George W. Bush. Because he's either the luckiest man on the face of the earth (and that never hurts in a leader) or he is an instrument of God. What I'd be looking for, then, is during the inaugural of the new administration his rising to the heavens. Between the election & the inaugural I'd have had time to get my spiritual house in order, of course.

I'm curious all you hard core bashers of the war in Iraq,

What is YOUR plan to prevent islamic terrorists from nuking NYC and DC?

To elaborate -- the neocons propose to drain the swamp.

What is *YOUR* plan? I lost friends during 9/11 so I'd really like to know your proposal.

I consider myself an old-time conservative (voted for Reagan in 1980, active in local Republican politics ever since) who falls somewhere between Oldman and the Jerry Pournelle/Cochran crowd. I'm the sort who thinks that the greatest threat to our country right now is not the large cache of hidden Iraqi WMD's that Al Queda operatives are about to unleash upon the US (as my neo-con friends keep trying to convince me), but rather the fact that our budget deficit is spiraling farther out of control than it ever did during the Carter-Reagan-Bush years. I don't understand why we're better off spending $87 billion for this little adventure, or how we're safer by pulling troops out of South Korea now that Kim Jong Il either has the bomb or the fixin's for it.

I notice there's a category for those who think Colin Powell is the devil incarnate; well, what of those of us who feel he has more wisdom about all this in his little finger than the rest of Bush's inner circle put together? Rumor says that Powell councilled about Iraq: "You break it, you bought it." Well, even if that statement is apocryphal, it does sum up my thoughts about this. It is a mess, we broke it, but since we also bought it, we'd be fools not to spend the trouble, dollars, and yes, American lives to fix it. But that doesn't mean we have to like it, or think that it was all a great idea in the first place.

Regarding Norman Pfyster's challenge, I'm not having second thoughts since I thought this was a bad idea from the start. But he does ask a good question...what should we have done differently? Admittedly, this is with 20/20 hindsight, but surely someone should have realized that in a one-party country run by a thug like Saddam, pretty much anyone who had a government job down to the schoolteachers and the buck privates in the army had to be Baathists in name if not in conviction. Sure, purge the political appointees from the government and the military, but why throw thousands of poor schmucks who don't care who is in power as long as they have a job out of work? Especially when thousands of them are young men with weapons and military training...is it any wonder there are plenty of fools for the leaders of the insurgency to recuit?

I don't think Bush is a bad man, and believe me, I don't see Kerry as a better alternative, but for the sake of both America and Iraq, a large portion of Bush's inner circle just has to go.

The person responsible for this mess is easy to find: former President Jimmy Carter.
Wasn't it him that was responsible for the Iranian takeover of the embassy and the capture of the hostages?
Didn't that force the US into bed with Saddam Hussein?
And that resulted in the creation of a monster who hubristically believed that he could lead the US by the nose.
So....Pres. George H.W. Bush had no choice but to clean up the Carter mess and now, young Telemachus must finish the job!
That damn Carter!

Politically, Matthew Cromer asks the key question. Plenty of Americans disappointed in how Bush's administration has run the war in Iraq are still not willing to turn the government over to people who don't think seriously about national security policy.

There are a few Democrats who do, but they are a minority and have been for years. Most of them would give to Cromer's question the same answer if he asked it on any subject related to national security: "well, not that." They would not do what Bush has done. They would not lie; they would not exaggerate; they would be respectful of our allies and follow the rule of law and everything would be OK, just the way it was when Bill Clinton was President.

I'm not arguing here that this is the wrong response, only that not enough American voters will believe it to elect John Kerry President. It's not just that Clinton was President while the terrorist threat we are dealing with now grew while he obsessed and agonized and did nothing, though that is part of it. It's that the "let's do what Clinton did" crowd have no objectives, no goals beyond not doing what Bush is. It's no accident that most of the constructive criticism of administration policies -- again, I note the odd exceptions -- are coming from Republicans, and conservative Republicans at that.

Look, everyone pretty much recognizes that almost everyone in the American government was to one degree or another asleep at the switch on terrorism before 9/11. The public knows how Bush changed his views after that, and knows nothing about how John Kerry or other prominent Democrats changed theirs. If they did -- in their public statements Democrats seem persuaded that everything was just fine as long as they held office and everything will be fine again as soon as they return, on terrorism and the economy and everything else. Now that the primaries are behind them they will have to do better if they expect to win in November.

Matthew Cromer writes: "What is YOUR plan to prevent islamic terrorists from nuking NYC and DC?"

Well, if they do, they probably got their nuke from Pakistan, not Iraq.

to whoever said the kurds' landlocked location condemns them to economic servitude:
1 word: switzerland.

Matthew: I'm sorry for your losses, but if you think that the current situation in Iraq is anywhere close to 'draining the swamp', then you're mistaken.

Zathras: I think you're loading your argument by trying to talk both of 'constructive' criticism and a supposed lack of clarity on behalf of the Dems. Say what you like about Joe Biden, for instance, but he's not being vague or complacent. I can only assume that you dismiss, a priori, policies that aren't explicitly military.

And EJ makes a big point: Iraq has actually damaged both the perceived ability and the actual ability of the US to respond to failed states, should a threat from those arise.

Finally, those who remember David Thomson before he fled from Brad DeLong's comments boards should perhaps also remember the following statements, among the highlights of 2003:

"The war costs will soon be considered a bargain. We are now much safer after invading Iraq. This should result in an economic boom. America with the help of her allies have proven itself capable of deterring terrorism and overcoming our military foes. The stock market should go up considerably, and oil prices are rapidly dropping."

"Trust me on this, the polls throughout the world will soon show that America will be loved and respected far more than before. This will be especially true in Iraq!"

"Moderate Muslims are becoming more willing to confront their more radical cohorts."

And, of course, who can forget his prediction that large caches of chemical and biological weapons would be found within weeks of the invasion.

He truly does put Miss Cleo to shame.

“Finally, those who remember David Thomson before he fled from Brad DeLong's comments boards should perhaps also remember the following statements, among the highlights of 2003:

"The war costs will soon be considered a bargain. We are now much safer after invading Iraq. This should result in an economic boom. America with the help of her allies have proven itself capable of deterring terrorism and overcoming our military foes. The stock market should go up considerably, and oil prices are rapidly dropping."

We are much safer after invading Iraq. Has there been a terrorist attack on American soil? Oil prices are unfortunately up, but we are experiencing an economic boom. The stock market is also up considerably. America’s economy is doing very well.

"Trust me on this, the polls throughout the world will soon show that America will be loved and respected far more than before. This will be especially true in Iraq!"

There is only one reason why this prediction on “love” hasn’t come to pass: the liberal anti-American media. These scum bags are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. As for respect, the Arab countries have grown increasingly hesitant in confronting us. Military success is always rewarded by a growing respect for the victor. I would rather that America be respected than love.

"Moderate Muslims are becoming more willing to confront their more radical cohorts."

This is definitely occurring. As matter of fact, the Iraq situation is a splendid example of moderate Muslims wrestling control from the nihilists.

"And, of course, who can forget his prediction that large caches of chemical and biological weapons would be found within weeks of the invasion.”

Yup, I was wrong about this prediction. There’s no way that I can say otherwise. But so was Bill Clinton and everyone else.

“The person responsible for this mess is easy to find: former President Jimmy Carter. Wasn't it him that was responsible for the Iranian takeover of the embassy and the capture of the hostages?”

Let’s not forget Ronald Reagan. Perhaps the greatest mistake he made during his presidency was removing our troops from Beirut after the bombing. This greatly encouraged our enemies.

> I recall we were being called traitors and America haters early last year when we did speak up.

Well, you know, not every accusation of giving aid and comfort to the enemy is false. If someone goes around acting like they want the U.S. to lose, like they want Bush to fail, that they believe, as one poster put it, "we have lost all moral authority", etc., then if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, we can't rule out the possibility that it's Donald himself. When I try to picture a patriot in my mind, Michael Moore is as unlikely to appear in that context as he would be during a sexual fantasy (and whether you're gay or straight is irrelevant).

Put me in this camp: I'm hopeful that the presdident's policies will make this a better world. I think he's trying to do the right and honorable thing. I think there have been obvious abuses of authority in the prison scandal, but we're doing what honorable nations do and prosecuting our own people over them. He's probably made mistakes, but one mistake he hasn't made is to not fight at all.

And I think that if Bush's policies had a chance of succeeding, they are now in grave danger from the nattering in the press. I hope it isn't going to take another 9/11 to force us to deal with reality, but the reality of this situation is that a large and potent faction in the Islamic world wants us dead. They don't want you alive, and me dead, because you're anti-Bush and I'm not. They want us both dead. They want the entire Western civilization dead. That's the same Western civilization, by the way, that has raised entire generations of Western intellectuals who also want it dead -- that's right, they want the very thing that enabled their existence to die like a salted snail.

One of these days, one of our cities is going to go up in a mushroom cloud. Will that be enough to get the news media off the prison scandal? Maybe, for a day or two.

For the record, I'm one of those conservatives who thinks Bush is wrong about democracy-building. I think democracy is an accident, formed by an alignment of Western culture, Anglo tradition, and Christian religious beliefs. If democracy is planted, it needs these other things as a soil. Iraq doesn't have any of these things, and so cannot have an enduring democracy of any sort. Institutions are not easy to build. What I'm hoping to get out of his policies is a world that's safer because we took down two major sources of trouble in the Islamic world, with more to come.

For the record, I believe the right policy is to smack down any country that aids or abets Islamic terrorist. We don't need to threaten the terrorists, we only need to threaten the heads of state. They will take care of the terrorists themselves once they see we're serious, and they won't be reading Miranda rights when they do it. Iraq was all about showing them we're serious. You can argue there were more deserving targets, and you might be right. If Bush made a mistake, it was in trying to go for the low-hanging fruit first, but who knew there would be so much opposition? It should have been a slam dunk that we need to take out a bloody dictator who has broken a gazillion U.N. injunctions and gasses his own people. Who knew that the Left would discover its fondness for fascist dictators? As best as I can tell, Tojo, Hitler, and Mussolini are owed an apology.

One thing is for certain: You can't have responsibility without authority. For years, the U.S. has been lectured that whenever there is something wrong in the world, we have to right it. That means we're responsible. But we're always told as well that we shouldn't impose our will on other people. That means a lack of authority. You can't have both; one must yield. Bush is taking responsibility and grabbing the necessary authority. He's making mistakes? Sure, just like every other wartime president -- or when FDR allowed the exposed German Bulge to exist without being cut off and annihilated actually part of some grand plan to make the world a better place by allowing thousands of U.S. troops to freeze to death?

The Bush camp probably needs to re-adjust its sights, but we need the liberals, desperately, to regain some perspective.

"What is YOUR plan to prevent islamic terrorists from nuking NYC and DC?"

Easy: stop meddling in Middle Eastern politics.

Islam has always been there - and the Wahhabi movement has been there since the 19th century - but it never tangled with the U.S. until we went over there and started screwing around.

D.T.,

There never has been a "perfectly fought" war. All have had some flaw. However, I would offer the U.S. counteroffensive across the Pacific during WW II as one of the finest combat operations in history. Not quite perfect, but pretty close, unlike the idiocy we have seen in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad.

"’What is YOUR plan to prevent islamic terrorists from nuking NYC and DC?’

Easy: stop meddling in Middle Eastern politics.

Islam has always been there - and the Wahhabi movement has been there since the 19th century - but it never tangled with the U.S. until we went over there and started screwing around.”

You have stated your absurd position very clearly---and you represent the thinking of many, if not even most, John Kerry and Ralph Nader supporters. When push comes to shove---a very high number of them agree with Noam Chomsky.

> ...unlike the idiocy we have seen in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad.

Not terribly helpful. A little specification would help.

IMO, this is one of those areas where, actually, Bush is not conservative enough. As in so many other policy areas, he wants things both ways. He wants to make American safe, and he also wants to be seen as the "good guy". Ultimately, he or some future president is going to have to make a choice: one, or the other. It's impossible to exert the kind of military force it takes to subdue an opponent, and still be perceived as the "good guys".

At least the Left understands this. They would choose to maintain the "good guy" stance, at the expense of America's safety. We can't be bad guys if we refuse to fight. The goal of all leftist politics is to allow leftists to feel morally superior to everyone else on the planet. If a few thousand Americans have to die each year in horrible terrorist incidents, why, that's a price we must all be willing to pay so that Noam Chomsky can feel safe, smug, and secure.

As self-appointed spokesman for at least a portion of the fragmented Right, I say we fight. We fight long, we fight hard, and we make it hurt just as bad as we can. Innocents will be killed, yes, but innocents will also be killed if we do nothing. When something like 9/11 happens, you show the heads of state in the world of Islam that a horrible fate awaits any regime that so much as winks and shows a little leg to any terrorist organization.

Is that an arrogant attitude? Well, that's an interesting question. We'll talk about it in a couple of years, if we're still alive to do so.

Bush wants to save America but he also wants to appease the Left. He has to choose; he can't do both. Kerry and the Democrats at least have an intellectually viable position: be the good guys first, and don't worry about little things like surviving.

DT,

You know, confronted with a long list erroneous predictions it's not a good counterargument to simply ignore reality.

Matthew,

What does the Iraq war have to do with stopping Islamist terrorists from nuking the US? If that ever happens it will probably be Saudi financed and provided by Pakistan. What does Iraq have to do with any of that?

GT,

Simple. Iraq is just a stepping-stone to regional change. Until the Middle East becomes civilized, we are at a grave risk from terrorists with Nukes.

Pep, we "intervene" in the rest of the world simply by existing, engaging in trade, and having our media spread throughout the globe. In any event, it's a little late now to avoid pissing off the Islamo-fascists.

Lee:

When you conflate the War on Terror with the situation in Iraq, you end up on dangerous ground. Your average Sadr City punk is not the same kind of opponent (and does not have the same mass murdering objectives) as your average Osama groupie. Plowing Falluja in the dirt victimizes a lot of innocents, in a way that the reduction of Tora Bora does not.

Bush had an insight -- to fight the war on terror, you have to provide a beacon of Democracy in the Middle East -- to drain the swamps of poverty etc etc. It's a new spin on the famous root cause argument (which was based on poverty rather than governmental system.) And, had we a more intellectual governing elite, the debate on whether you need a certain economic conditions to generate democracy, or certain democratic institutions to generate a prosperous economy would have been fascinating. (I'm undecided, myself. But I'm just a pension consultant -- I don't have to have an opinion.)

Our administration never had a good idea, and never implemented. Kevin Drum has had a series of fascinating postings on our president as a failed CEO. He'd sure like to achieve those favorable results, and he's sincere about achieving them, but he is utterly unwilling to take a single hard step to make them possible. To me, this isn't the President trying to be "a nice guy". You read David Frum's book, you hear about the language he will use on suboirdinates, you realize that niceness is not one of his objectives. To the extent that Bush is using softer tactics in Iraq than you'd like, he's either doing it because (i) he does not want to totally inflame the people of Iraq against us or (ii) he does not want a big bloody situation in Iraq rather close to the election.

Oops, I meant "Our president had a good idea, and never implemented."

"You have stated your absurd position very clearly---and you represent the thinking of many, if not even most, John Kerry and Ralph Nader supporters. When push comes to shove---a very high number of them agree with Noam Chomsky."

David,

That comment is utter nonsense. You have absolutely no basis for that comment. This is your normal trick-whenever someone to the left of you criticizes Bush, compare them to Noam Chomsky. I hate Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore and Ralph Nader with a passion, but I am up to here with the dissimulation and arrogance of this administration. And I'm equally fed up with the demonization of everyone that disagrees with you. this sort of Nixonian love it or leave it mentality. You seem to have this right-wing fantasy view of democrats where they are all pot-smoking long-hairs carrying Viet Cong flags. This is just idiotic. maybe you don't see any Democrats in Houston so you assume that's what they like. (not to mention that not all Kerry supporters are that liberal.)

“David,

That comment is utter nonsense. You have absolutely no basis for that comment. This is your normal trick-whenever someone to the left of you criticizes Bush, compare them to Noam Chomsky. I hate Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore and Ralph Nader with a passion.”

What part of my carefully worded “and you represent the thinking of many, if not even most, John Kerry and Ralph Nader supporters” did you not read.

“Simple. Iraq is just a stepping-stone to regional change. Until the Middle East becomes civilized, we are at a grave risk from terrorists with Nukes.”

Yup, it comes down to whether you agree with Bernard Lewis that the Arabs must join the modern world if we are ever to achieve peace. Iraq is one of the first dominoes that needs to fall. If you don’t buy into this theory, then vote for John Kerry. The Massachusetts senator is basically the anti-Bernard Lewis candidate.

Who killed decorum? Can't we just call the President "the President"? Must we call him "Dubya"? This isn't Democratic Underground and it's not Free Republic. Play hard, but apply good form.

Dougy G: The President has shifted on some positions. You pointed out the handful of majors. However, what separates the President from John Kerry is not that he flip flops[they both have], but that the President doesn't deny that he flip flops. John Kerry presents his P.O.V. as if he held that position all along.

The President did shift on Homeland Security. As to why remains unanswered, although I suspect it was one opportunity the President had to work on a bi-partisan bill that would be very popular with the American people.

Jeffrey: President Carter did make mistakes with Near Eastern policy. Pulling the rug out from under the Shah probably hurt us more than it helped us. Then when he wasn't supporting the Shah, neither was he willing to work with the new theocrats in Iran. The anti-Shah Iran wanted military supplies. The US had military supplies. Yet the US under President Carter had no approach to deal with Iran that was minus the Shah. We needed some way to work with Iran once we realized the Shah wasn't coming back because the United States wasn't supporting him except on his asylum search.

Maybe our Near Eastern policy would have been different had we just supported the new Iranian government softly. Maybe if our Near Eastern policy wasn't suddenly supportive of Iraq after the fall of the Shah things would have been different. But certainly Near Eastern affairs have spiraled out of control since the Iranian revolution. Israel has gone from arms trading partner of Iran to primo target of Iranian arms.

pep west: Yes, Islam has always "been there". No, the Salafist Islam of Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab has not always "been there". Islam and its followers are not monolithic. Lets not treat them as if they were.

Disputes between tribes had "been there" before North America was even colonized. The "Great Satan" existed well before the first british ships ever landed in the Islamic world.

Dan Drezner: Is this the mass email you received from Laurie Mylroie?

If so then you would have Laurie's opinion assumed as the editorial page of the New York Sun. Nonetheless the Taming of Ahmad Chalabi is a prequisite to the future of Iraq. An explosion of wealth in Iraq is inevitable, but the ends cannot stand to justify the means. If Chalabi is to acquire wealth may he do so through the just means of equal opportunity for all Iraqis. The last thing the United States needs is for the INC to become the Capital Barons of a newly Democratic Iraq. That would NOT be in our interests considering the historical context that the so called Islamist Democrats maintain towards the United States[shah, Hashemites, House of Saud, Zayad Monarchy, Nassercons].

In light of the positions that INC members now maintain in key ministries the CPA should take a devil's advocate position on some decisions. Perhaps the Abu Ghraib prisioners were detained on leads obtained from the INC and other incorporated partners. The US Military didn't have any comment on the raid of Chalabi's office. The CPA directed comments and questions to the Iraqi civilian police and couts. Thus I'm inclined to believe that Chalabi may not be playing nice and his get out of jail free cards may have run out with L. Paul Bremer.

Chalabi doesn't have much to worry about. His banking friends in London, Dubai, Zurich and New York still want in on Iraqi business. As President Bush sticks to his guns on the June 30th handover it is clear that the DoD is losing an inter White House debate for authority with the State Department.

On the election side there's few worries for President Bush to fall any lower in the polls. The Bush supporters are not moving anywhere except further against John Kerry. Despite all the bad news in the last two months the poll numbers show that people are sticking with Bush and that is likely to do with the ineffective and unconvincing John Kerry. Just listening to Kerry's foreign affairs advisers like Richard Holbrooke establish that John Kerry has little plan if any to address Iraq. Or, maybe Holbrooke has a plan but winning the election in November is more important than speeding the transition in Iraq today.

I'm expecting the Democrats to use Iraq to defeat President Bush as they viewed the Republicans using Iranian hostages to defeat President Carter. The only obstacle is the steamrolling economy. Kerry's not talking about that anymore and the "3 million jobs lost" is officially a dead argument.

Matthew Cromer writes:
"I'm curious all you hard core bashers of the war in Iraq,
What is YOUR plan to prevent islamic terrorists from nuking NYC and DC?
To elaborate -- the neocons propose to drain the swamp.
What is *YOUR* plan? I lost friends during 9/11 so I'd really like to know your proposal."

My plan? It's what I thought Bush's plan was, until he started beating the drums for a war in Iraq that had zilch to do with the War on Terror:

1) Through diplomacy and moral suasion, isolate the terrorists from the bulk of the Islamic world, by establishing common ground with rational Muslims.

2) Attack the terrorists through whatever combination of military, intel, special ops, etc. is most effective.

Unfortunately, our war in Iraq has completely undone step 1, making step 2 a much greater challenge than it should have ever been.

I saw this question posted and the serious lack of responses forces me to state the obvious...

’What is YOUR plan to prevent islamic terrorists from nuking NYC and DC?’

First of all, I wouldn't be wasting billions over in Iraq that could be spent shoring up the home defense. The Administration has woefully underfunded any effort to tighten up our borders and ports. There have been some recent measures (Bioshield being one), but millions of transport containers continue to be brought into this country with only cursory inspections. I may lean left on social issues, but even sensible conservatives must acknowledge that we've got holes in our homeland security that could use some serious attention. In the meantime, we are wasting precious funding on irrational, unproven measures like ballistic missile defense (classic USA vs. foreign state action) when we should really be shoring our defenses up for assymetrical attacks (the lone bomber with chem, bio, or rad). This is but one example of mismanagement that is not making us safer in the short run.

> When you conflate the War on Terror with the situation in Iraq, you end up on dangerous ground.

I do indeed conflate them, and it has to do with American credibility. We had been triple-dog-daring Saddam and putting him on double top-secret probation for years. Even Bill Clinton is on record as saying that military action against him was probably inevitable; he was just unwilling to do it himself. There was no way Saddam could stay in power and the U.S. retain any credibility.

> Your average Sadr City punk is not the same kind of opponent (and does not have the same mass murdering objectives) as your average Osama groupie. Plowing Falluja in the dirt victimizes a lot of innocents, in a way that the reduction of Tora Bora does not.

Not "plowing Falluja in the dirt" also tells terrorists that all they have to do, in order to beat us, is to hide behind civilians and put up a stiff fight. If I were Osama or his people, I'd be taking notes. Do we mean what we say, or not? You can argue about whether we should be there, but you cannot convince me that, given that we are there and that our goal is to establish a democracy in Iraq, that it doesn't require rooting out and killing the thugs.

> Our administration never had a good idea, and never implemented.

Maybe. But it acted. Clinton was chock full of ideas, but he never acted. Thousands of people died because we didn't act before it was too late. If we don't act, thousands more are certain to die. There is only one way to get someone who hates you enough to kill you, to keep from killing you: You kill him first, or you make the consequences of his actions intolerable to him or to someone in his general vicinity who does not want to find himself in the crosshairs. If we don't start showing the Islamic world that there are terrible costs to be paid for attacking Americans, you can expect them to keep attacking Americans.

> Kevin Drum has had a series of fascinating postings on our president as a failed CEO.

Yawn. Truman was a failed haberdasher. That fact couldn't possibly be more irrelevant than it already is toward judging the decisions he made as president.

> To the extent that Bush is using softer tactics in Iraq than you'd like, he's either doing it because (i) he does not want to totally inflame the people of Iraq against us or (ii) he does not want a big bloody situation in Iraq rather close to the election.

I don't think it has anything to do with "nice", either. It has everything to do with trying to establish and shore up a base with liberals. He thinks its the key to good press. It's a vain and futile endeavor. No Republican president can ever please liberals. Liberals will not allow any Republican president to enjoy a success. The same policies that would earn a Democrat kudos and worship words will earn a Republican nothing but contempt. Since it's a vain effort, you might as well give up and do what you know is right, if you're a Republican.

The first thing to do to fight terrorism is to stop taking actions that produce more terrorists. This means not putting our troops in positions where killing civilians is likely to happen. Having the US occupy a Muslim nation was probably Osama Bin Ladin's wildest fantasy in 2001. And he got it.

I really think if you want to be serious about fighting terror you should look for guidance from the person that did more to fight terror over the last decade than anyone else. That is Richard Clarke. If you right wingnuts could get over smearing him at every turn you might realize that what he has to say about fighting terrorism is very valid, and highly informed. And if you read what Clarke has to say you would know that invading Iraq was doomed to undermine our fight against terrorism.

But even more than an effective strategy on dealing with terrorism you need effective organizations. Anyone who has worked in a variety of settings knows that stability in an organization is a precursor to effectiveness. Take a look at the history of leadership in counter-terrorism under President Bush. I think we are on Counter-Terrorism advisor number four at this point, with each one leaving in various states of disgust at the importance placed on counter-terrorism by this adminstration.

The core of the problem gets down to the fact that you can't fight a war against a tactic. You have to fight a war against an enemy. Are we at war against Al Qaeda? I would say yes. And fighting a war in Iraq is a huge distraction to fighting our real enemy. My alternative is to focus resources on fighting Al Qaeda. This would be a combination of covert actions, political pressure, law enforcement, spying, etc. It would not involve infantry divisions and tanks except in situations where our enemy chooses to fight us in a traditional field of battle. They chose Afganistan for that fight in 2002, and we did not dedicate ourselves to defeating them, instead pulling out resources, and holding back others in order to be able to fight a war against a different enemy in Iraq.

Really, I wish I was making all this up, but it is tragic how badly our War against Al Qaeda has been fought.

We are doing quite well in Iraq... The normal state of affairs is to get overly excited about every bit of bad news instead of looking at the larger picture.

I agree: calm down, people.

We're making progress. You have to ask yourself what is the reason we are in Iraq. Well, there are lots of reasons, but two -- that haven't been mentioned much -- are the sheer excitement of war, and the sheer joy of holding other human beings in your utter and complete control (and what comes after!).

Yes, only only a few have gotten to experience that feeling of utter, total control, but we can all share in it vicariously.

I remember the moon landings in 1969. Yes, only a handful of people have actually experience the awe, wonder, excitement, and adventure of actually travelling to and standing on the moon, but we all shared it, we all felt it.

And yes, and so far we've seen only tame stuff -- but there's more to come. The PC inhibitions are coming down. I saw a report yesterday where we tortured a guy's son to make him break down (to get him to "talk", supposedly -- the PC Police make them say that). Here's one I want: how about making a mom choose which of her daughters is to be raped to death in front of her? Man that gives me woodie right there.

And there's going to be rape pix, and snuff pix, and REAL torture pix. And it's all free.

So, as I say, we're making progess. The only downside is that the granny PC Police are going to make us leave Iraq eventually. And I guess we're gonna run out money sooner or later. Man, I wish it could go on forever.

We're making progress in other ways, too, not just in the prisons. The other day we shot up -- no, not just shot up, but like totally demolished -- a wedding party. We got 40+ men, women, and children. Like a video game, but 1000 times better because IT WAS REAL! Image you getting to do that! No, not the PC stuff you have to say to grandma, but the real feeling of getting that bride in your sights and just letting go. Man, if that doesn't excite you -- yeah, I know you won't admit it, but you know it does -- you're just not human.

And some guys really DID get to do that. Lucky duckies!

It is mentioned above that terrorists are likely to hide behind civillians based on our actions (or lack thereof) in Fallujah.

This just points to the need for us to be better at other aspects of fighting terrorists than dropping bombs and firing artillery. Good strategy dictates moves and counter-moves. If your enemy is in open ground, use open ground tactics.

If your enemy is hiding behind civillians, then infiltrate those civilians and fight them through intelligence. For a terrorist to succeed they need secrecy. That is much harder in a crowded city than in a hidden camp.

We can find the hidden camps with satellite. But we can only find them in the city through informants and spys. For those to work we need the people on our side in this fight. Yet we are driving them away by killing their friends and relatives and torturing their countrymen.

I am astounded by the strategic blindness at work here by the US. It is so simple, yet mental and tactical flexibility is so alien to this President that we are missing our chances to win this war against Al Qaeda.