Centerfield

I think we're really caught in a pretty odd situation.

On the one hand, I think Bush is handling this in a way that virtually no other leading Republican would. Just about any other Republican we might have elected president would likely have been more successful both before the war and after in garnering international support and participation.

It was actually expected, worldwide, that the administration would follow up a mostly unilateral war with a serious effort to "share the burden" in postwar reconstruction. Their ideologically-driven attitude about the U.N., NATO, and other multilateral bodies is a genuine surprise to just about everybody, given the sacrifices it requires us to make in blood and treasure.

And it *continues*. There a practical options for setting up a U.N. command in Iraq without putting U.S. forces under that command. But we are apparently opposed to that option, which means we won't get significant additional support from other countries.

That puts us in a very, very tough position. On the one hand, we can't select a Republican other than Bush in 2004 -- someone who might be equally tough, but with a practical attitude about using diplomacy.

And, on the other side of the aisle, we may have a Democrat who just isn't tough enough to see all this through. Will a Democrat be willing to face up to the long-term sacrifices it will require to succeed in Iraq?

A tough situation. And an example of where the conservatives and liberals are failing us.

Rick,

Re: 'We remain at war, and as Lincoln warned in 1864, it may be dangerous to change horses in midstream.'

BTW, I'm looking forward to Clark's book 'Winning Modern War' due out next month:

http://www.leadershipforamerica.org/cart/Scripts/prodview.asp?idproduct=3

I guess I really see very little traditional invading-armies as the future for the 'war on terrorism'. I see it more 'fuzzy', like the war on drugs or war on organized crime or preventing espionage. The Congress certainly has not seen fit to declare war formally (which is another issue). Seems to me the military is simply one tool, and probably not frequently used for the most part in the coming decade or so.

Having read several of your comments about your reluctance to have confidence in someone other than Bush, I'm wondering what your basic assumption is for the democratic candidates. Do you assume they would not give national security the appropriate priority? Reason I ask is that I probably come from the other direction: I'd assume anyone except a complete idiot surrounded by idiot advisors would do what is necessary to protect this nation. I think Gore, had he been the man on the spot, would have been all over Afghanistan just as Bush was. But I DON'T have confidence in Bush to know when non-military means is the more effective response.

Comments, guys?

Erasmus

I served 22 years in the Army. Never under any circumstances would I support a retired general for anything more important than pudunk dogcatcher.

Nothing wrong with GWB!

I worry about Clark, and I just don't feel like I have enough of a fix on the guy to know if he's a real, solid president. Sometimes you can't really know that until they take office, of course.

That being said, I think there's a lot to worry about with GWB too. Mainly that he doesn't know how to use some of the major tools at his disposal.

In addition to the strongest military force, we have more economic and diplomatic power (by far) than any other country in the world. Enough to where it was possible for a president with diplomatic skills to draw much more support from other countries both before and after the war.

Occupying an Arab country is one of the touchiest situations we could put ourselves in. And we had the opportunity, with skillfull diplomacy, to put an international stamp on it right from the beginning -- something that would tend to change at least some Iraqi perceptions of the whole thing.

As administration sources admit, Iraq is becoming a "terror magnet". Some suggest this works alright for us -- we can face them and defeat them. How do you think Iraqis feel about it though? Fighting our war on terror on their turf is one among many things keeping us from convincing Iraqis that our presence is a plus for them.