"Let's be clear: we have lost this war. We have lost because the initial, central goals of the invasion have all failed: we have not secured WMDS from terrorists because those WMDs did not exist. We have not stymied Islamist terror--at best we have finally stymied some of the terror we helped create. We have not constructed a democratic model for the Middle East--we have instead destroyed a totalitarian government and a phony country, only to create a permanently unstable, fractious, chaotic failed state, where the mere avoidance of genocide is a cause for celebration. We have, moreover, helped solder a new truth in the Arab mind: that democracy means chaos, anarchy, mass-murder, national disintegration and sectarian warfare. And we have also empowered the Iranian regime and made a wider Sunni-Shiite regional war more likely than it was in 2003. Apart from that, Mr Bush, how did you enjoy your presidency?"
--Andrew Sullivan, "Ron Paul for the Republican Nomination," December 17, 2007

It doesn't even need to be denied that the Iraqi WMDs existed. Even if they did, we didn't secure them from terrorists. If they did exist, they're probably in Syria. In which case, mission failed.

"Apart from that, Mr Bush, how did you enjoy your presidency?"

Despite the massive failure of the "War on Terror," and the many disappointments on spending, etc., final judgment on the Bush administration cannot be made for many years. The reason is that, more than any Republican president in recent memory (including Ronnie), Bush has improved the Supreme Court. Given the (inordinate) amount of power that the Court wields, a return of the Court to Constitutional principles would have significant impact on the course of our nation.

The final results of the Iraq war may not be known for some time. As to the goal of establishing something resembling Democracy, we never had any real control over that. In the end, this will be up to the Iraqis. The best we can do is establish the necessary security to give this a chance. So far, we really have not.

I think it would be fair to say that the results of the Iraq war to date have had not had the utility for our national security that we anticipated, however, with the current surge we may have finally found a strategy that will work but it is too early to tell. It may be a bit premature to declare the Iraq war as "lost."

With that said I think we would have gotten better utility for our national security interests if we had secured the borders, monitored the mosques, placed a moratorium on immigration from Middle Eastern countries, deveolped more of our own oil and gas reserves, and built more refineries than we would have ever gotten by invading Iraq.

B. Poster,

I love your concluding paragraph. But why is it that our political leaders choose the most unrealistic, incredibly costly, death-inducing, and unviable option? Like you say, we never could have control over the Iraqi society and whether it could exist as a democracy . . . but why then are we still there occupying them? It is just a ludicrous situation. Is this stubborness of an ungodly sort?

We can still change course and do what you suggest, w/o bleeding us dry financially and destroying our military. If only they would so so.

Bruce

Thanks for the reply to my post. I have always found your posts to be very thought provoking. The fact that you seem to be in agreement with much of it indicates to me that I msut be on the right track:)

My last paragraph is the optimal solution. Unfortunately we cannot implement it. I'll break it down. Secured the borders....can't be done. The anti-American left would never allow it. Any such attempt would be decried by the media and their allies as racists or worse. Monitored the mosques....ACLU would never allow it. I think it was Los Angeles who recently attempted to implement a plan where predominantly Muslim areas would be monitored closely. The ACLU and other Leftist organizations struck it down. Developed more of our own oil and gas reserves and built more refineries.... the enviro-whackos who inhabit many of the courts and much of the Governmnet bureacracy would never allow it.

You ask why our leadrs chose the option they chose. I think they did what they did because at the time there was a consensus among both Republicans and Democrats that Iraq posed a genuine threat to the United States. I'm not entirely convinced that Iraq did not pose a threat to the United States. Some reports indicated the sanctions were on the verge of collapse and there still remain unanswered questions about the supposed WMD stockpiles, however, for now I'm assuming they did not exist. If they existed, it seems unlikey they would not have turned up by now or been used by now.

As for why they chose to try to coax Iraq to a Democratic form of Government, I think it stems from a basic lack of moral confidence that the Americans have in their position on the world stage. American leaders and much of the populace were taught in Leftist leaning public schools, they were taught and indoctrinated by Leftists professors at the elite universities. Due to these factors many American leaders do not have enough confidence in America's global position to adequately defend it. As such, they cannot act soley to defend America or its interests. They need something more noble like spreading democracy or liberating something or someone. Also, the use of overwhelming force is out of the question. Again this requires enough confidence in America's global position to adequately fight to maintain it. This means that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq must be fought with one hand tied behind our backs and with too few troops. The Government would not dare to call for a draft. To ask someone to sacrifice to serve their country, would require the Government to have enough confidence in the US's position to adequately defend it.

You ask "but why then are we still occuppying them...." I would suggest consulting with the Iraqi government for the best answer to that question. Some of their elected officials have said US troops are still needed.

In any event, we will not be there much longer. The domestic political situation in the US will not allow it and the military is being worn down. Even if the domestic political situation were to change suddenly, the Army would be unable to maintain the troop levels for much longer. Also, even if Iraq were to suddenly become completely tranquil and the Iraqi government asked us to remain indefinitely, we still would not do so. The Iraqi government has stated that their territory cannot be used as a base to move against another Middle Eastern country, such as Iran or Syria. This would make these troops sitting ducks for Iran, Syria, or any "insurgent" who might decide to show up. In summary, a long range military presence by the US has no marginal utility for either the Iraqi government or the US government.

The surge will be coming to an end soon and the domestic political situation will not allow the US to maintain it if it could. All US troops and US personnel of all types will be completely out of Iraq by 9/30/2008. If I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it.

You write, "It is just a ludicrous situation." I agree whole heartedly!!

You write, "is this stubborness of an ungodly sort?" Perhaps it is. What I think it comes down to is a basic lack of confidence in America's global position that many American leaders seem to have. As such, wars cannot be fought soley for American interests. They must be fought for something like "democracy" and they have to be fougt half heartedly like we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. If there is one thing we should have learned from this experience, is wars have to be fought all out simillar to how we fought WWII. They cannot be fought on a limited scale. Also, the enemy needs to be properly defined. "War on Terror" is a lazy term. "Terror" is simply a method of war fare that is being used primarily by the followers of Islam and is being supported by their Communist allies in Russia and China and by the US and Western Europe purchasing large amounts of oil from said followers of Islam. The enemy has never been properly defined nor have the objectives been clear enough.

Also, many people seem to think that if we disengage from Iraq or Afghanistan right now we would be conceding the field to very dangerous enemies of the US. As such, they think such a move would be disasterous for American national security interests. I have some sempathy for that position, however, if we are going to continue in Iraq, a major change of strategy is in order. Enough troops need to be committed to the country to secure its borders, secure the weapons caches, secure the oil pipleines, and provide a secure environment for its population. Frankly I don't see us getting this kind of committment. At this point, I'm not sure what utility it would have for us any way. We might just be propping up an Iranian puppet state. As such, I'm not even sure the Iraqi government would be on board with this any way. They seem to be much closer to Iran than they are to us.

In additon to this, our current strategy has led to general instability accross the region. This has drasticly increased the price of oil which has enabled Russia. Russia is by far and away our most dangerous foreign enemy. The obsession with Iraq and Afghanistan seems to have largely caused us to lose sight of Russia.

Given that we are not willing to make the committment to conduct Iraq properly, our allies are not willing to do it either, and the Iraqi government likely would not be on board any way, our only real choice is to withdraw.

So far the American political elite has refrained from having a frank discussion with the American people about what will happen after we withdraw. Since for the reasons mentioned above withdrawl is inevitable whether anyone likes it or not, it should be discussed. I don't think anyone knows for sure what will happen, however, I think it is more likely than not that Al Qaeda, Iran, and Russia will be strengthened exponentially. Islamic terrorists will likely get a strategic base of operations in Iraq. They will plot attacks that will make 911 seem small in comparison. The question for American policy makers will be how to thwart these attacks.

Post Iraq our enemies are going to be much stronger and we will likely be much weaker. As such, it is going to be vitally important to secure the borders, monitor the mosques, place a moratorium on immigration from Middle Eastern countries, develop more of our own oil and gas reserves, and build more refineries. These are things we should have been doing all along but it is going to become even more mission critical after the withdrawl from Iraq and Afghanistan.

By developing more of our own oil and gas reserves and building more refineries we should be able to have some leverage when dealing with OPEC countries. Right now we don't have any leverage. Also, such a common sense policy, would remove funding from the terrorists. Had we implemented the policies I laid out in the last paragraph of my first post after the WTC bombing in 1993 we may have been able to prevent the attacks of 911. I cannot be sure but I think we agree this would have been a better option than what we are currently doing.

I wish Andrew Sullivan would explain why he thought the outcome of the war would be different from what's happening now. We knew that an Iraqi democracy would give the Shiite community political control of the government and that their financial support is in Tehran. We knew that Iraq was religiously and ethnically fractured and such diversity cannot create a stable nation state.

We knew -- or were learning -- that Iraq didn't have any WMD and besides had no intent to use them against the United States or provide them to a terrorist group. Everything that's now happening in Iraq was foreseeable.

The purpose of studying history and politics is to know generally what works and what doesn't. We shouldn't expect someone who identifies himself as a conservative to be surprised if a communist economy reduces the entire country to poverty because that is exactly what communism does -- and conservatives don't need wait for the results. Likewise, the reality in Iraq was entirely predictable, so what did all the pro-war partisans not see?

That's why I cannot take anyone seriously who claims to be a conservative and supported the war . Being surprised by the developments in Iraq indicates you were either not thinking or had abandoned conservatism.

My guess is that the Sullivans, Hannitys, and Rushes, of the world really are not conservative, and more or less just identify themselves as Republican propagandists.

Theres strong reason to believe Andrew Sullivan is not a conservative, but to argue that he is a mouthpiece for the Republican Party is ridiculous. Have you read his blog?

It's simple. Stop killing people. Their freinds, family, and neighbors will cease wanting to kill us back, after they feel they've gotten even. Turn it around if you don't get it.

9/11: cui bono?

Afghanistan: cui bono?

Iraq: what were they thinking?

Tell me, who did we kill that prompted 3,000 of our fellow citizens to be murdered on 9/11?

It's a brilliant concept that if we leave the world alone, they'll leave us alone. When has that worked, pray tell? Ever!!?

Unfortunately, there are many in the world who are primitives and who only understand force and fear. Sometimes, killing them is the ONLY way to stop them from killing us.

9/11 was a tragedy and certainly was not the fault of the American people. But do you really believe that the foreign policy of the United States towards the Middle East and Central Asia, one of continuous interference and aggression, for 60 years following World War II, did not help to bring it about? Do you really believe that it would have happened if those policies had not been pursued?

The American government, though not the people, played a large role in briniging about 9/11.

No doubt our past policies have something to do with it. But I think it would be naïve to think that radical Islamists would not have eventually gotten around to us; a country that many of them consider to be the largest stronghold of infidels on the Planet.

Being a Superpower has its consequences. But isn’t it the chicken or the egg when you play the ‘who insulted or attacked who first’ game? That could (and it probably will) go on forever. After a while, one forgets who started it.

There are nasties out there who will decide for no good reason other than they think they have a good reason to attack us and it’s better to take it to them before they get to us.

In a perfect World, I would not want us to be an aggressor. In this World, however, we need to be. Not only for the purposes of self defense but to scare the bejeezes out of our enemies. Enemies who will never go away and who usually only understand might.

"No doubt our past policies have something to do with it. But I think it would be naïve to think that radical Islamists would not have eventually gotten around to us; a country that many of them consider to be the largest stronghold of infidels on the Planet." -asdf

There is no doubt in my mind that radical Islamists also want to destroy the west for the sake of what the west represents. But if the USA had not engaged in Middle Easts imperialism for six decades, how many people would they be able to recruit to their twisted cause? Not many, I'd wager.

"Being a Superpower has its consequences. But isn’t it the chicken or the egg when you play the ‘who insulted or attacked who first’ game? That could (and it probably will) go on forever. After a while, one forgets who started it.

There are nasties out there who will decide for no good reason other than they think they have a good reason to attack us and it’s better to take it to them before they get to us.

In a perfect World, I would not want us to be an aggressor. In this World, however, we need to be. Not only for the purposes of self defense but to scare the bejeezes out of our enemies. Enemies who will never go away and who usually only understand might."

One wonders why exactly we should want to be a super power, then. If having the world's mightiest military machine does not mean that potential aggressors will leave you alone, what is the reason for having it? So far it seems to have done little else but create problems.

i was all for pat b.in 1996. you know let the world do its thang and we do ours. thats the main reason i supported gw in 2000. but 911 changed everything. for you clowns to say the us is responsible for 911, i say tell me how? suport for israeli. please, rags need something or someone to fight, and now that the ussr is gone well that leaves us. so to me the days of laying low and to ourselves is over. its time to destroy before being detroyed.

When were the days of laying low and keeping to ourselves? The United States has continuously meddled in world affairs since World War II.

The reason we are in this war is because 9/11 should have changed everything but in fact changed nothing. The government learned zip from it and continues to pursue a policy of world imperialism and aggression.

But they do Ben, that's the point.

Considering our country’s natural wealth and resources, do you believe that if we weren't a militarily potent Superpower that other countries would just leave us alone?

We are one of the wealthiest countries in the World with, arguably, the highest standard of living. And (using our Patriots as an example) few like the big dog and look to take it down.

And as we know, on top of that our culture alone can be reason enough to put us in the cross hairs.

Explain this Imperialism thing. Keep hearing that we are Imperialists but don't get how.

And speaking of being in the cross hairs, we'd better watch out for China. Especially before another Clinton ends up in the White House and advances them technologies that will allow them to get a jump on us.

"But they do Ben, that's the point.

Considering our country’s natural wealth and resources, do you believe that if we weren't a militarily potent Superpower that other countries would just leave us alone?

We are one of the wealthiest countries in the World with, arguably, the highest standard of living. And (using our Patriots as an example) few like the big dog and look to take it down.

And as we know, on top of that our culture alone can be reason enough to put us in the cross hairs." - asdf

Yes. Maintaining a military strong enough to adequately defend the country and maintaining a military strong enough to maintain global hegemony are two different things. In fact, as 9/11 demonstrates, the latter actually has failed at the goal of defending the country. It was powerless to prevent those attacks, and it has since been powerless to apprehend the chief perpetrators of it.

Indeed, this massive war machine has not successfully achieved a victory since World War II. It fought to a draw in Korea, was defeated in Vietnam, and, while it temporarily won the day in Desert Storm, the fact that hostilities resumed in 2003 demonstrates clearly that the objective of "stabilizing" the Middle East was not achieved. It is now of course shown itself completely incapable of keeping order in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even if you believe that in order to defend our borders we need a military that is strong enough to control the entire globe, it cannot be denied that the record of US military & foreign policy since WWII has been one of consistent mediocrity and failure.

"Explain this Imperialism thing. Keep hearing that we are Imperialists but don't get how." -asdf

Support for oppressive client states that brutalize their people, military bases across the world, direct & indirect meddling in the affairs of other nations, outright invasions of nations in other parts of the world that do not conform to our demands. For example, invading Iraq because it could not do the impossible and prove that it did NOT have WMDs, and our current threatening of Iran, even after our own NIE has concluded that they are not producing nuclear weapons. We appear to the people of the world as naked aggressors, and this is largely not an unfair characterization of our foreign policy apparatus.

"And speaking of being in the cross hairs, we'd better watch out for China. Especially before another Clinton ends up in the White House and advances them technologies that will allow them to get a jump on us." - asdf

What interest, on any level, has China shown in a military conflict with the United States? China spends about $78 billion yearly on its military. The United States, by comparison, spends $430 billion yearly.

That Ron Paul is really smart and he knows how to take a position. He probably thinks that if we would have cut off the Ho Chi Minh trail in Vietnam we would have won the war. Besides everyone knew that Iraq had no WMD's. It was common knowledge. Ron knows what it takes to create a good government. Throw around a couple of Madisons and Jeffersons and there it is. I am sure he means a Republic when he talks of a democracy but at least he knows what a democracy creates. Being a philosophical conservative is great when you don't have to worry about those unstable, genocidal groups flying American Airline jets into the WTC. Maybe we can talk to them.

Ben T, you make me laugh, usa imperialists, give me a break. yea we got bases around the globe. and i do beleive its time to leave all of them but why are we there in the first place? well lets see, hmm , rebuilding two of the greatest enemies this country ever faced. well ben t_boy do you agree that it was a good thing to destoy nazi germany? i think you do, mainly because history proves us right. but people like you back in 1939, were the ones who wanted to leave hitler alone. anyway if it wasnt for the commies we wouldnt have had to defend half the world, ie imperialists in your commie lovin mind. its not that we (usa) want to rule the world, its that we know there are people who want us dead.

oh yea Ben T, our military failed to stop the 911 attack. well how about now?

"Ben T, you make me laugh, usa imperialists, give me a break. yea we got bases around the globe. and i do beleive its time to leave all of them but why are we there in the first place? well lets see, hmm , rebuilding two of the greatest enemies this country ever faced. well ben t_boy do you agree that it was a good thing to destoy nazi germany? i think you do, mainly because history proves us right. but people like you back in 1939, were the ones who wanted to leave hitler alone. anyway if it wasnt for the commies we wouldnt have had to defend half the world, ie imperialists in your commie lovin mind. its not that we (usa) want to rule the world, its that we know there are people who want us dead." - tagm

If you are asking, do I believe the US should have gotten involved in World War II? No, I don't. The communists by the way, were the biggest proponents of getting involved in that war, so I am afraid it is you who is the dirty red.

Sorry for the late response on this as I forgot about the postings. But I did want to address your responses.....

“it cannot be denied that the record of US military & foreign policy since WWII has been one of consistent mediocrity and failure”. - Ben-T

That’s true and all failures since WWII can be attributed to us not having the political will to win these conflicts. We have the finest military utilizing the best weaponry in the world and there is no reason, other than civilian interference and political posturing, that we shoudn’t be on top of any military expedition that we truly want to win.

“What interest, on any level, has China shown in a military conflict with the United States”? - Ben-T

None. Not yet. Although it is in their Manifesto that they will take down the United States. And understanding human nature, especially with regard to a historically aggressive culture like China, do you really believe that the Chinese don’t have designs on some real Imperialist dominance?

Thanks to the United States primarily, they are currently sitting comfortably on billions in financial surpluses that have allowed them to build huge SWP’s and are using that money to not only buy up U.S. business concerns but to build a military. And what do you think they’ll eventually do with that military? It isn’t going to be for defense.

"For example, invading Iraq because it could not do the impossible and prove that it did NOT have WMDs" - Ben-T

Would you not agree that we went into Iraq as a primarily defensive measure? All intelligence pointed to Iraq having WMD's and that it was sponsoring those who might use them against us. That said, other than knowing for sure that they don't have them, what have we gotten out of Iraq that would lead you to measure our action there as being Imperialistic?

Wake up Ben. There’s the World and the World the way you’d like it to be.

That would be SWF's.