Gerard Vanderleun of American Digest tells the harsh, simple truth in a not-to-be-missed essay: we will be in Iraq a long, long time and the reasons for doing so are not the reasons that have been hashed over ad nauseam e.g. WMD, establishing democracy, the vileness of Saddam Hussein, etc. As I have previously noted, I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq for the reasons given at the time but I might have favored it had these correct and necessary reasons been given.
As I mentioned in Vanderleun’s comment section, I doubt that the Administration could have garnered a consensus for war for these reasons. But that, I suppose, is my greatest criticism of the Bush Administration: not only am I dissatisfied (as many are) with the planning for the occupation (which I think is excuseable), I’m dissatisfied with handling of the domestic politics. The Administration should have been more frank. The Administration should have built more political support at home and abroad. The Administration should have been willing to place the home front on a wartime footing.
I’m concerned that these omissions may cost us the victory.
But read Vanderleun’s essay and consider whether we should be planning on a withdrawal from Iraq in the foreseeable future.
FWIW, I agree, Dave.
I have always argued that the Bush administration was not telling the real reasons to invade Iraq because they didn’t beleve the American people would buy it. So instead they tried to play up WMDs, etc. and it’s coming back to haunt them.
If Iraq had been portrayed as strategic in a globalized war, there may (here’s me hedging) have been no reason to “sell” the invasion. FDR didn’t bother to sell the Normandy Invasion because the nation was committed to the war.
My reasons to support the invasion were not the administration’s, but I honestly don’t know that I care all that much about the reasons.
The big mistake isn’t that Bush is fighting the war; it’s that the administration has not decided for itself that the only option is to win. Everything else is window dressing.
I agree with you about the true reasons for war. But you guys are crazy to think it could ever have worked. A group of brave young men who believe in their cause more than you believe in yours (they are out there planting IED’s now while you are tapping away) are giving the US forces a good kicking.
Your grand plan lies in tatters and the Middle East is more dangerous than ever. Plus $5bn a month and 100 odd troops has got you oiol at $65 a barrel not 12.
They couldn’t build more support abroad because we Europeans realise a stupid idea when we see one, and even from an idiotic group of Reaganites the plan for Iraq looked really stupid.
Sooner or later even the biggest supporters of the war are going to have to admit what a failure it was, except for Iran I guess. I mean they did announce today that Sharia law will form the basis of the new constitution.
Jeremy, you should go back and actually read some of what I have written. I am not now and have never been a supporter of the war in Iraq (or Afghanistan for that matter). However, I would be interested in reading what your alternative proposal is.
((crickets))