Thoughtful commentary on Iraq and Congressional "charade"

[Roxanne Appleby]

House Call
By MARTIN PERETZ
WSJ, February 16, 2007

Our political imagination of evil is impoverished, and nowhere is it more impoverished than in Iraq. Even today, when the blood of innocents flows so richly and regularly, we do not seem to grasp its origins, or its power. That is, we do not seem to grasp the centrality, and the perdurability, of culture. And in this regard, the president and his party, as well as the Democratic Party, are equally blinded by their respective orthodoxies.

When the administration took us into Iraq, it was in transports of universalism, as all democratizers must be. All that it wished to know is that people, all people, people everywhere, yearn for liberty and for a fair state. This was not the traditional Republican view of these matters, and it took some courage for George W. Bush to buck the cynical and cynically elitist view of his father and James Baker that arrangements can always be made with dictators, and satisfactory arrangements at that. It was actually refreshing to hear this Four Freedoms trace of Franklin Roosevelt from the smug Grand Old Party, although we had already heard it once before from its slightly dopey but truth-seeing president, Ronald Reagan. All men and women want to be free, Mr. Bush said, and Iraqis too.

The problem is that this belief, which is probably true, is not all we need to know. Whatever people want, they want in their particularity. General aspirations are always locally inflected, sometimes to the vanishing point. The people we set out to liberate were not just human beings, they were also Arabs, and Muslims; and more particularly, they were Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims, and Kurdish Muslims as well. We did not invade only an enslaved country, we invaded also an ethnos, a religion, a culture -- none of which have been historically (and frankly philosophically) receptive to the great blessing that we wished to confer. The president's belief in the omnipotence of the American military -- that it can outsmart and outfight militias that butcher indiscriminately -- only confirmed him in his sense that the persistence of cultural and sectarian hatreds would be no problem, that a 1,300-year-old fact of culture and religion could be effectively overcome by a new doctrine of counterinsurgency.

The Democratic opposition went through a similar process, but in the reverse. It is true that liberals are keenly aware of difference, and lovingly celebrate difference. That is what multiculturalism is about, and moving towards open borders too. But they do not like to see the virulence of diversity -- the historical persistence of the enmity of one element of the crazy quilt for the other, even one seemingly quite akin to the other. The liberal appreciation of the hateful dimensions of tribal and clannish identity generally extended no further than the blood rituals of "The Sopranos." Now they are so much wiser, and sagely lecture everyone within earshot about the permanent hatreds between Sunni and Shia, although their House chairman of intelligence oversight had not the foggiest notion of who was in discord and what the discord was about. In any case, they counsel smugness, since none of these inter- and intra-sectarian hostilities will ever come to our shores.

Where, then, are we in the war? No one knows exactly what to do about it. Everybody knows that we are in trouble. Even those of us who are skeptical about the ideological inclinations of many Democrats cannot but dignify the national anxiety that they represent. The House is now debating a nonbinding resolution supporting our troops already in Iraq and disapproving the dispatch of 20,000 more. The debate is, strategically speaking, pointless: The new troops are already on their way. The Senate will figure out how to make its own sense of the politically fraught perplexity. Now, both houses of Congress are perfectly entitled to debate anything of this magnitude. Indeed, they have a responsibility to do so. A war should not shut down free opinion, or -- worse yet -- informed opinion. So the attempt of the House minority leader, John Boehner, to scare them away from a serious debate with demagogic references to the American Revolution is unseemly. This is a weighty war, very weighty. The absence of a serious debate about its ends and its means would rightly earn the national legislature the contempt of all Americans.

But the formula that the House Democratic leadership has fixed on is a charade. It allows each of the 435 representatives five minutes at the podium, enough for them to posture for local television but not so much that anybody can say anything serious, let alone deep or even brave. And the resolution's text itself is rather cowardly. For, since it purports to be a declaration of support for American soldiers actually fighting in Iraq -- whatever "support" actually means -- why does it criticize the only help that can possibly enable the military in the war: more soldiers and more weapons? And, if the Democrats do not want the war to be continued, then they should bring forth legislation either cutting funds or setting a date for withdrawal, in the manner of George McGovern. There is no rationale for troops in terrible danger to be held hostage to the political expediency of nervous Democrats, who are not prepared to do what they really mean to do and to say what they really mean to say.

Only one resolution is being debated on the House floor, and no amendments will be permitted. Not quite a debate, is it? One sees in Nancy Pelosi's iron-fisted eagerness to get everyone into line a measure of her years in the wilderness. She will have her way. And the political hothouse is even more torrid in the Senate. There, after all, sit the candidates for president. One would think that, given the threat to her nomination posed by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton would be more flexible in her views on the war. Her insistence on not saying that she had made a "mistake" in voting for the 2003 deployment of troops to Iraq puts her out of the center of gravity of her party. Mr. Obama has set the tone and the pace for the Democrats, and he has the advantage of having been clearly antiwar from the beginning. I suspect that almost all Democrat aspirants will end up imitating him. Why won't Mrs. Clinton capitulate to Democratic orthodoxy that the war was always a "mistake"? Out of pride, of course: Hillary Clinton doesn't make mistakes. Only other people do, and especially George Bush.

Senate Democrats are also making sure that no real debate will be held in that body. But, in a certain material sense, the Senate has already approved the administration's enhanced strategy in the war by confirming Gen. David Petraeus's appointment as the U.S. commander in Iraq. Whose strategy do the Democrats imagine our soldiers will be following? If they didn't want this strategy and they didn't want to continue the war, they should have turned him down. That would have been a real message, and a true one.

But the Democrats want it both ways. One of the tropes of many Democratic critics of the war is that, in going to war in Iraq, we squandered our near-victory in Afghanistan. The defeat of the Taliban was actually exhilarating, what with women out in the streets with normal clothes they wanted to wear and children even playing musical instruments. But the enthusiasm of the Democrat Party for Afghanistan is rooted in the fact that Afghanistan is not a strategic asset for the West. It is only a moral triumph. The Democrats prefer to look away from the colder long-term calculations of American and Western interests in the Middle East. We need more than moral triumphs there. We need strategic triumphs. If Iraq turns out not to be the latter sort of triumph, it will be remembered as one of the most momentous blunders in our history.

I think the odds against us are huge. One reason is that Iraq is neither a state that coheres nor a society that coheres. Its civil society, if that is what it is, is not quite a civilized society. The carnage between Shia and Sunni, and the carnage among other religious and ethnic communions, since the end of Ottoman rule have left deep and bloodied breaches in Iraq. If these cannot be repaired, it will be a huge defeat for George Bush -- and, whatever many liberals think of it, for liberalism as well.

Mr. Peretz is editor in chief of The New Republic.

 

[mjl2010]

Well that was well written and well said.

MJL

 

[Pure]

peretz in quandary.

i'm supposing he was gung ho a couple years back, now he sees the mess.

the gist seems to be the "we can't leave" or "we can't afford to lose."

The Democrats prefer to look away from the colder long-term calculations of American and Western interests in the Middle East.

they do, do they? lilly livered they are.


We need more than moral triumphs there. We need strategic triumphs. If Iraq turns out not to be the latter sort of triumph, it will be remembered as one of the most momentous blunders in our history.

well, we *need* a strategic triumph. it would sure be nice. is mr. peretz saying 'go for it'? he's a bit vague. but next para he says it's going to be difficult.

I think the odds against us are huge. [...] If these [rifts in Iraqi society] cannot be repaired, it will be a huge defeat for George Bush -- and, whatever many liberals think of it, for liberalism as well.

interesting twist; it won't be a defeat for Bush or the neocon approach but to "liberalism."

in short. STAY THE COURSE. ["triumph" and "repair" of rifts are apparently the goals]; he gives no reason for thinking STAY THE COURSE is going to work, but alleges US forces must continue fighting.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

. . . well, we *need* a strategic triumph. it would sure be nice. is mr. peretz saying 'go for it'? he's a bit vague. but next para he says it's going to be difficult.

I think the odds against us are huge. [...] If these [rifts in Iraqi society] cannot be repaired, it will be a huge defeat for George Bush -- and, whatever many liberals think of it, for liberalism as well.

interesting twist; it won't be a defeat for Bush or the neocon approach but to "liberalism."

in short. STAY THE COURSE. ["triumph" and "repair" of rifts are apparently the goals]; he gives no reason for thinking STAY THE COURSE is going to work, but alleges US forces must continue fighting.

Perhaps that's what he's saying.

Forget the politics for a moment, if possible: Is this a defeat for liberalism? Perhaps "defeat" is the wrong word. Is it an indication that liberalism's ultimate triumph is much further in the future than I suspect (and hope) everyone reading this board would hope?

"The problem is that this belief (that all people yearn for liberty and for a fair state), is probably true, (but) is not all we need to know. Whatever people want, they want in their particularity. General aspirations are always locally inflected, sometimes to the vanishing point."

 

[Pure]

while there are broad similarities in the neocon agenda and the classic liberals' ideas of 'make the world safe for democracy' or 'aid people's democratic struggles everywhere' the essential differences are quite obvious. reading FDR's four freedoms speech, the state of the union in 1941, confirms this point:

http://www.libertynet.org/edcivic/fdr.html

one notes for a start that FDR proposes sending arms and supplies to democratic movements, but not soldiers.

FDR: I also ask this Congress for authority and for funds
sufficient to manufacture additional munitions and war
supplies of many kinds, to be turned over to those nations
which are now in actual war with aggressor nations. Our
most useful and immediate role is to act as an arsenal for
them as well as for ourselves. They do not need manpower,
but they do need billions of dollars' worth of the weapons
of defense.

The time is near when they will not be able to pay for them
all in ready cash. We cannot, and we will not, tell them
that they must surrender merely because of present inability
to pay for the weapons which we know they must have.

I do not recommend that we make them a loan of dollars with
which to pay for these weapons-- a loan to be repaid in
dollars. I recommend that we make it possible for those
nations to continue to obtain war materials in the United
States, fitting their orders into our own program. And
nearly all of their material would, if the time ever came,
be useful in our own defense.

Taking counsel of expert military and naval authorities,
considering what is best for our own security, we are free
to decide how much should be kept here and how much should
be sent abroad to our friends who, by their determined and
heroic resistance, are giving us time in which to make ready
our own defense.

For what we send abroad we shall be repaid, repaid within a
reasonable time following the close of hostilities, repaid
in similar materials, or at our option in other goods of
many kinds which they can produce and which we need.
Let us say to the democracies : "We Americans are vitally
concerned in your defense of freedom. We are putting forth
our energies, our resources and our organizing powers to
give you the strength to regain and maintain a free world.
We shall send you in ever-increasing numbers, ships, planes,
tanks, guns. That is our purpose and our pledge."

===
a neoconservative statement of principles is at the address below: note the LAST point in those laid out:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm


[start quote]
We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?


We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests.

The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global

responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
[end quote]

 

[only_more_so]

He lost me at "the blood of the innocents flows..."

Seriously, I had a very hard time reading past that line. It is perhaps the most cliched expressions ever to come out of the anti-war movement. I am not saying to disregard an entire paper because the introduction relies on cheap sentiment. Well, maybe I am.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

He lost me at "the blood of the innocents flows..."

Seriously, I had a very hard time reading past that line. It is perhaps the most cliched expressions ever to come out of the anti-war movement. I am not saying to disregard an entire paper because the introduction relies on cheap sentiment. Well, maybe I am.

Well Christ, how would you describe setting off a bomb that kills 150 men, women and children in a crowded market? What were the kids "guilty" of, for God's sake?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

while there are broad similarities in the neocon agenda and the classic liberals' ideas of 'make the world safe for democracy' or 'aid people's democratic struggles everywhere' the essential differences are quite obvious.

You're dodging the question to engage in a little neocon bashing, Pure. Forget the neocons, and just look at the current situation in an Iraq where the heavy hand of the dictator no longer holds down the lid on sectarian hatreds and bloodymindedness. Whether the impulse is Wilsonian or Neocon, it is crystal clear that the possibility of a "liberal" outcome in that land was never real. The same may be true in the land "governed" by the Palestinian authority, and perhaps Lebanon also. It may well be true of the entire region, and places like Bosnia, and perhaps even Russia. As I said earlier, "defeat" for liberalism is probably not a correct formulation. Liberalism was never even in the game.

 

[S-Des]

You're dodging the question to engage in a little neocon bashing, Pure. Forget the neocons, and just look at the current situation in an Iraq where the heavy hand of the dictator no longer holds down the lid on sectarian hatreds and bloodymindedness. Whether the impulse is Wilsonian or Neocon, it is crystal clear that the possibility of a "liberal" outcome in that land was never real. The same may be true in the land "governed" by the Palestinian authority, and perhaps Lebanon also. It may well be true of the entire region, and places like Bosnia, and perhaps even Russia. As I said earlier, "defeat" for liberalism is probably not a correct formulation. Liberalism was never even in the game.

I think the whole situation proves that as much as we like to flatter ourselves with our intellectualism, there is far more out there than we understand. I doubt a liberal approach would be any more effective (did anyone see Sean Penn say that it was OK if Iran got nukes, because we could sit down and talk with them....GAG!!!). Since it wasn't tried, we'll never know for sure, however GB proved that a Neocon approach will not fix everything. You can't save people from themselves. They have to decide what they want, then fight for it. At the moment, you have the people we liberated calling us occupiers (while their government is begging us not to leave). Everyone hates us, it's costing lives on both sides, it's been a tremendous waste of money, and the best we can hope for is that it doesn't break down into open civil war. I think the Democratic response this week was trite and cynical, but I don't have any real hope for the troop surge. If the religious leaders can keep talking their followers into blowing themselves up (along with the innocent men, women, and children), there is no answer that I've heard to deal with it.

 

[only_more_so]

Well Christ, how would you describe setting off a bomb that kills 150 men, women and children in a crowded market? What were the kids "guilty" of, for God's sake?

Without a doubt, innocent people are getting killed, but that is no excuse for cliched writing. Good writing opens people's eyes, bad writing cause them to glaze over.

Wouldn't it have been better to say something like, "Some Iraqis celebrate their new found freedom by setting off bombs in town squares, killing hundreds of their country's women and children. This is why freeing the Iraqis is an impossible battle to win."

But that's just off the top of my head.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Without a doubt, innocent people are getting killed, but that is no excuse for cliched writing. Good writing opens people's eyes, bad writing cause them to glaze over.

Wouldn't it have been better to say something like, "Some Iraqis celebrate their new found freedom by setting off bombs in town squares, killing hundreds of their country's women and children. This is why freeing the Iraqis is an impossible battle to win."

But that's just off the top of my head.

Well, keep working on it, because to call this any kind of "celebration" is an ugly perversion of the word. Personally I think you're over-reacting to the use of a cliche' - cliche's often become cliche's because they express some truth about the world, and this is hardly the worst of the lot, or even inappropriate here, in my view. But it's a matter of taste, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion about such things (obviously.)

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I think the whole situation proves that as much as we like to flatter ourselves with our intellectualism, there is far more out there than we understand. I doubt a liberal approach would be any more effective (did anyone see Sean Penn say that it was OK if Iran got nukes, because we could sit down and talk with them....GAG!!!). Since it wasn't tried, we'll never know for sure, however GB proved that a Neocon approach will not fix everything. You can't save people from themselves. They have to decide what they want, then fight for it. At the moment, you have the people we liberated calling us occupiers (while their government is begging us not to leave). Everyone hates us, it's costing lives on both sides, it's been a tremendous waste of money, and the best we can hope for is that it doesn't break down into open civil war. I think the Democratic response this week was trite and cynical, but I don't have any real hope for the troop surge. If the religious leaders can keep talking their followers into blowing themselves up (along with the innocent men, women, and children), there is no answer that I've heard to deal with it.

S-Des, at the risk of shortselling you and making a fool of myself, we're using the term 'liberal' in the broader sense of expressing western values of tolerance, respect for individual rights, etc. Here's wiki's version. I believe it's fair to say that Pure is a "progressive liberal," while I am a "classical liberal." In an important sense we share the same view of what is "the good," although we fight like cats and dogs about certain critical details.

 

[only_more_so]

Well, keep working on it, because to call this any kind of "celebration" is an ugly perversion of the word. Personally I think you're over-reacting to the use of a cliche' - cliche's often become cliche's because they express some truth about the world, and this is hardly the worst of the lot, or even inappropriate here, in my view. But it's a matter of taste, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion about such things (obviously.)

Celebration was chosen because it is an ugly perversion. Got your attention, didn't it? That probably went to the other extreme of bad political writing with giving in to cheap shock value.

And you are right that, "just because something is a cliche, doesn't mean it isn't true." Can't remember who said it originally, but I have heard it a number of times before.

 

[S-Des]

S-Des, at the risk of shortselling you and making a fool of myself, we're using the term 'liberal' in the broader sense of expressing western values of tolerance, respect for individual rights, etc. Here's wiki's version. I believe it's fair to say that Pure is a "progressive liberal," while I am a "classical liberal." In an important sense we share the same view of what is "the good," although we fight like cats and dogs about certain critical details.

I was using more of a generic version to encompass as much as possible. No offense to anyone, I wasn't trying to group them in stereotypes, just making a generalization. In this case, I doubt there are any answers that would adequately find a solution to this mess. Although I often find myself allied with your opinions, I couldn't adequately describe my political opinions under any single heading (which may just make me indecisive ). I don't have any axe to grind against any group, which I hope gives me the chance to give them a fair shake when they make a point. I've never really understood why people align themsevles with a specific philosophy or candidate (which is why I tried to start that thread ), I've never found anyone who I agree with most of the time.

In this case, I think the Dems are just posturing for the votes. If the war had gone better, they'd be taking credit for their bipartisanship in fighting terrorists. I'm still waiting for someone to produce any information Bush had that Dems on the Intelligence committee didn't have before the vote. Hell, does anyone really believe that Hillary didn't get insight from her husband on exactly what was going on with Iraq when he insisted Sadaam was reconstituting his arsenal a decade earlier?

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

This has all become an interesting dance. The Republicans want to support an unsupportable leader while the Democrats want to tell him to fuck off. Neither party wants to be branded as the party who left the troops hanging.

The problem is, Bush had such a free hand under the Republican congress that he thought he could do anything without anyone looking over his shoulder. The troop serge is quite a different thing now that we have the Demos controlling congress. Bush knew it would never fly. What did he do? In the State of the Union address he said, "I will send..." This was a total lie. He had already sent them. If he had waited for congress to approve, it wouldn't have happened - he knew that.

That would mean he would be forced to resort to the plan from the Iraq Study Group or from select members of the Democratic Congress. But he is so suck on "staying the course" that option was not acceptable to him.

Instead, he did what he's always done: Played toy soldier with a juvenilistic notion that the US soldier is unbeatable. And why not? They aren't shooting at him.

Congress, on the other hand, is still divided in what to do. One faction wants to cut off all funding, forcing Bush to bring the troops home. Another faction wants a time table for withdrawl. Because of this division, the congressional leadership settled on a "Non-Binding Resolution" that basicly says, "We don't like the troop surge." Duhhhhhhhhh. That's like doing nothing.

So, for the last couple of weeks congress has been bogged down on an issue that means nothing, does nothing and will result in nothing.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I was using more of a generic version to encompass as much as possible. No offense to anyone, I wasn't trying to group them in stereotypes, just making a generalization. In this case, I doubt there are any answers that would adequately find a solution to this mess. Although I often find myself allied with your opinions, I couldn't adequately describe my political opinions under any single heading (which may just make me indecisive ). I don't have any axe to grind against any group, which I hope gives me the chance to give them a fair shake when they make a point. I've never really understood why people align themsevles with a specific philosophy or candidate (which is why I tried to start that thread ), I've never found anyone who I agree with most of the time.

The really cool thing is, I believe every single person on this forum is a 'liberal' under that broader definition. The tragic thing is that many cultures don't believe in it at all. (The fatal flaw of multiculturalism, in my view.)

wiki:

Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment, but the term has taken on different meanings in different time periods (for example now in the United States generally it means new liberalism while in the rest of the world has the meaning of classical liberalism).

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power (especially of government and religion), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.[2] In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.[3]

 

[S-Des]

So, for the last couple of weeks congress has been bogged down on an issue that means nothing, does nothing and will result in nothing.

Could not have said it better. I'd disagree about the motives (a little). I think the Dems don't want to do anything, hoping that they can hedge their bets and look better than the Republicans no matter what happens. They don't want to look responsible if they make a decision and it goes bad. As the article pointed out, the head of the intelligence committee didn't know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite. Do we seriously expect a well thought out plan from these people?

GB's troop surge is him finally listening to the military people. Not that I think it's a great idea, just that it's an improvement from his previous, "I'm in charge and don't care what anyone thinks" approach. I think the situation is too screwed up to fix now, no matter what anyone does. But the next plan I hear from the Democrats will be the first one. Sorry, "Bush tricked us and we're against anything he's for" isn't a real plan.

 

[Pure]

mr. peretz might have noted that the executive branch now pretty much decides on wars and how to prosecute them. the surge is happening notwithstanding Congress.

conceivably Congress might become energized; some Republicans are very nervous, e.g., those who say they're sorry for efforts to block debate. congress has the potential to respond the people, to public opinion, and while lacking ultimate power, embarrass the hell out of a clumsy executive, expose corruption, etc. it can serve as a forum for military strategists that have become shut out.

----
the fundamental problem of mr peretz, however is his premise:

When the administration took us into Iraq, it was in transports of universalism, as all democratizers must be. All that it wished to know is that people, all people, people everywhere, yearn for liberty and for a fair state. This was not the traditional Republican view of these matters, and it took some courage for George W. Bush to buck the cynical and cynically elitist view of his father and James Baker that arrangements can always be made with dictators, and satisfactory arrangements at that. It was actually refreshing to hear this Four Freedoms trace of Franklin Roosevelt from the smug Grand Old Party, although we had already heard it once before from its slightly dopey but truth-seeing president, Ronald Reagan. All men and women want to be free, Mr. Bush said, and Iraqis too.

This has Bush looking out the window, daydreaming about democracy throughout the world, and the US heaven anointed role in bringing this about because of its mighty, though righteous power. Then we picture Bush having his attention alite on the suffering oppressed of Iraq. "why don't i free them, with our mighty army!" further "that will be the first step in freeing the mideast."

unfortunately, according to peretz, Bush forgot 'particularism' and Iraqi culture and so has gotten bogged down, perhaps fatally, *in his fighting the good fight for a fair and just, democratic society.*

the facts are that iraq was targetted for some time--say, since 1990-- because of its hostility to American and Israeli interests. neocons in particular had iraq's ruler on its hit list for the most recent, several years. its strategic location and immense oil reserves [among the greatest in the world] may have had just a little to do with this choice, also.

this analysis and these facts provide a reason for Roxanne's conclusion, which I think is correct (and somewhat contradicts Peretz's clinging to faint hope of 'strategic victory')

RA Whether the impulse is Wilsonian or Neocon, it is crystal clear that the possibility of a "liberal" outcome in that land was never real. The same may be true in the land "governed" by the Palestinian authority, and perhaps Lebanon also. It may well be true of the entire region, and places like Bosnia, and perhaps even Russia. As I said earlier, "defeat" for liberalism is probably not a correct formulation. Liberalism was never even in the game.

Ponder the first sentence. If it's true, which it is, EITHER, as peretz says, Bush was lost in dreams of democracy and forgot specifics, OR
the talk of a) democracy and b) threat to US was a charade of Cheney, Wolfie, etc. to ensure US intervention and dominance of the area in accord with US vital interests.

 

[S-Des]

This has Bush looking out the window, daydreaming about democracy throughout the world, and the US heaven anointed role in bringing this about because of its mighty, though righteous power. Then we picture Bush having his attention alite on the suffering oppressed of Iraq. "why don't i free them, with our mighty army!" further "that will be the first step in freeing the mideast."

But isn't this what we always here from liberals (again, using a generalization, but you know what I mean), that Bush is a quasi-religious zealot, believing himself to be infallible? That he is so deluded by his belief that he's right, that he's lost the ability to even talk to people with dissenting opinions (something that he was reputedly good at as Governor). It does seem to be a touch hypocritical (not necessarily by you) that people assign those moralistic views to him when it suits their argument, then turn around and say he's doing it just to get his "oil buddies" rich (which would be completely immoral, by almost any reasonable standard).

unfortunately, according to peretz, Bush forgot 'particularism' and Iraqi culture and so has gotten bogged down, perhaps fatally, *in his fighting the good fight for a fair and just, democratic society.*

the facts are that iraq was targetted for some time--say, since 1990-- because of its hostility to American and Israeli interests. neocons in particular had iraq's ruler on its hit list for the most recent, several years. its strategic location and immense oil reserves [among the greatest in the world] may have had just a little to do with this choice, also.

If it's true, which it is, EITHER, as peretz says, Bush was lost in dreams of democracy and forgot specifics, OR
the talk of a) democracy and b) threat to US was a charade of Cheney, Wolfie, etc. to ensure US intervention and dominance of the area in accord with US vital interests.

I think this is perfectly logical analysis of his presidency (except for the part about him forgetting about Iraqi culture, which would assume he knew anything about it in the first place). I agree that Iraq was targeted both for US military interests and because of the oil reserves. Neither are particularly evil motives. Stabilizing the region would help other nations struggling with the spector of hard-liners regressing their population. It has been well documented that the US is fairly popular among the Iranian high school/college aged students, who even listen to Western music and watch some of our movies. They aren't in charge at the moment, but there are rumblings about the rule in that country. It is entirely possible that Bush and his advisors believed that installing a more West-friendly regime in Iraq would encourage more questioning of those governments by their people, which would be a great way to help them into the 21st century (it's hard to recruit suicide bombers among a group of well-adjusted youth who think for themselves).

BTW, this doesn't mean that I think his policy was a great idea. But when people assume they know what his motives were, they need to at least consider the other side of the equation.