"The fact that so many hypotheses are necessary to reconcile a theory with the facts should persuade one to abandon the theory itself," Raymond Aron wrote in The Opium of the Intellectuals. Aron's words readily apply themselves to a current controversy surrounding the Iraq war.
Prior to the war, some neoconservative theorists assured us Iraq would be a "cakewalk," that democracy in Iraq would cause a domino-effect of democracy in the surrounding countries, and that the reconstruction would be cheap and paid for with Iraqi assets. None of this has come to pass. Rather than admit flaws in their theories and predictions, pro-war pundits have turned their guns on a man they lionized up until fairly recently: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Why? To absolve themselves of responsibility for the failure of their ideas in action. Crying that an idea didn't work as marvelously outside of your head as it did inside of it is, of course, the fallback position of all utopians. Ever hear a delusional academic claim that communism has never failed because it's never been tried? That's more than a bit like the blame-game that currently engulfs the pro-war scribes and bureaucrats.
Robert Novak's latest column on the internecine war between pro-war pundits and the secretary of defense is a must-read. Armed with his pen, William Kristol has inflicted the unkindest cut of all upon the beleaguered Rumsfeld. Novak writes: "the neocon message is that the war was no mistake but has been badly conducted.... [William] Kristol's call for Rumsfeld's dismissal removes culpability for those who beat the drums to go to war."
He continues: "Getting rid of Rumsfeld does not answer agonizing questions. Was the change of regime in Baghdad worth going to war? Could Saddam Hussein have been removed from power by other means? Is the use of U.S. military power to topple undemocratic regimes good policy?"
"There are no clear answers," Novak concludes. "To say simply that all would be well in Iraq, save for Don Rumsfeld, only begs these questions."
You seem to be implying that because states have not adopted democracy within a couple of months of Baghdad being occupied, that presto, the very idea is bogus. Not very patient are you, expectations of immediate consequence are somewhat juvenile, wouldn't you agree. Here is the deal, islam has not manufactured an Alexander Hamilton. Islam is a yoke of oppression that has so gripped a multitude of peoples, that it is dragging them down in a death spiral. In their throes of death, in a spazm and frenzy they are exporting their sickness, {antisemitism, antiwesternism and antiamericanism}, they are exporting their cult of mayhem and death {terror} and they are exporting the very bacillus of this sickness, {their imans, themselves, via an immigration tsunami overwhelming Europe}. Now the bedrock upon which the "neocons" have based their forward policy is that the current status quo, is neither static nor stable. It is neither static because Europe is being changed, not just demographically, but in its attitudes and all adversely. It is neither stable because the heavy hand of theocracy and autocracy in Islam CREATES the maleovolence that the Imans and radicals FEAST UPON, GROW FAT UPON, THRIVE UPON. Have you any suggestion that is credible that the status quo is anything other than FRICKEN SUICIDAL.
Kristol is going weak, going nervouos. This is not unexpected. Anyone who spends as much time in close contact with the chattering classes, especially the D.C. chattering class is GOING to have whatever conviction he has ERODE. Instead of swiftly and joyously denouncing him, why not spend some time educating him where he went wrong, and helping to buck up his faltering conviction. For one thing is for damn certain, this war needs winning. If you believe that we can allow our enemies to prevail, then my time is wasted even posting this comment. Because, such an opinion qualifies its holder as a brain dead lunatic.
As for the states surrounding Iraq toppling, it is well to recall that the ONLY reason Eastern Euros took to the street in the Velvet revolution, is that the signal had ALREADY been sent that the Soviets WOULD NOT bring the hammer down, as they had before. Otherwise they would have stayed home. Reagan had so decisevly defeated them, that the KNEW that the old ways could no longer avail them. In the mideast, that situation does not obtain, the MULLAHS ENJOY killing off opponents. The powers that be in the mideast will zealously destroy protesters. Machine guns, concentration camps, armored carriers all have a way of making one conscious of the frailty of your physical body. Anyone who expected these govts to be swept away by mass protests does not know the human condition. But the difficulty of initiating change, should not condemn those that start the ball rolling as utopians. Neocons are only utopians to those that believe the status quo is benignant, pacific and prosperous. In a word, those that gaze at the mideast through rose colored glasses. Are you such a one, because if so, go read your most recent book, and know that the bell TOLLS for THEE.
Vexations do not mean the idea of removing Saddam and replacing him was, or is flawed. We are encountering terror strikes against our forces, WELL DUH.........ITS THE FRICKEN MIDEAST, WHAT DID YOU EXPECT...... If the muslims there were not espoused to terror, we would hardly NEED to be there now would we.... You seem to be AGREEING with the Leftists who disparage the USA as only being able to knock over easy states, such as Grenada and Panama, that we are now unable to really gut one out. We are in a war, and instead of wasting broadband with snide "I told you sos," perhaps you might lend a hand, helping us to actually win the damn war. How bout that......
Dan M. Esq.
Neocons see Iraq as they see Vietnam, a war that was no mistake but has been badly conducted. Hopefully a result of the Iraq fiasco will be a turn from a foreign policy of benevolent intervntionism to one of neo-isolationism.
If you embrace neo isolationism, that means you have embraced a world view that is utopic, wherein armed force is only to be used in ideal situations that provide easy and rapid exits. But those are hardly the places from which problems are apt to arise. Afghanistan was hardly such a state prior to our going in, now was it.
Neoisolationism also blames the USA for being attacked, or as Pat Buchannon {the Vicar of Neoisolationism on earth} has put it, we are only being attacked here, because we have established a prior presence there. That is precisely the claim that the Germans used to justify their U Boat campaign against us, and is also precisely the justification the Confederacy used to initiate bombardment on Ft. Sumpter. It is a veil, a burqaa if you will, that they used to cover over the naked visage of their latent totalitarian creed. It should not be taken seriously, and it isnt except by the dear Vicar Pat, and other sundry lightweights.
DM: If you label the opponents of nosey armed interventionism as "neo isolationist," and then define neoisolationist as the position that "armed force is only to be used in ideal situations that provide easy and rapid exits," well of course opponents of Iraq (your political enemies) will be utopic. But this certainly isn't fair or honest.
I'm glad the Iraqis think things will work out for them.
However, Bush is running for President of the United States, not Iraq. All this stuff about helping Iraqis is besides the point. Since when do Republicans go in for foreign aid?
The problem with the Kerry campaign is that they're too politically correct to really make this an issue. They've taken an occasional swipe at Bush over this, but fundamentally, they're too "decent" to push the sort of xenophobic buttons that a Jesse Helms or Pat Buchanan would.
