Centerfield

Very good points. It's unfortunate how much this campaign is focused on the question of whether we should have gone into Iraq ... and less on what we should do now, and in the future.

I tend to think a Cold War analogy is a pretty good one. It's not a "hot" war, with military action all the way through. But we may use military action from time to time. Success or failure depends more on the overall strategy, and how doggedly you pursue it, than on a single use-of-force decision.

I tend to think, honestly, that politics in the Bush era is pretty hazy and poorly focused. We haven't fully grappled with the issue of intelligence reform, and when it comes to using force, we're focused on a decision from the past.

This isn't really a healthy environment where we're grappling with our major challenges and dealing with them. It's a thoroughly politicized environment filled with rhetoric and debating-points.

I like the Cold War analogy, but I think Bush has set forth more of a long-term plan than Kerry has. We're using a military response to take out Al Qaeda now, plus we're no longer coddling Middle East dictators and are pressuring them to cease supporting terrorism and to adopt democratic reforms.

Taking out Saddam Hussein not only ended a threat that has been lingering for over a decade, but it also set an example to other dictators and planted a seed of democracy in the Middle East.

The invasion of Iraq will have more long-term benefits than immediate ones in terms of the War on Terrorism. But I keep hearing critics complain that Saddam Hussein did not hijack any of the planes on 9/11 and therefore should have been ignored. And those complaints are sadly short sighted.

Nicely put, Staunch Moderate, my stance on the issue is very similar. The real test will be whether Iraq and Afghanistan can evolve into sustainable democratic governments. In essence we have to win the peace just as much as we won the war.

The Cold War analaogy is a good one but it shouldn't be taken too far. The main challange of the war on terror is that a very small group of disaffected people can have a very large effect on the nation as a whole. Through engagment you can harmonize with the majority of a population but you will never be able to harmonize with all the fringe groups. It is these fringe groups, which will always exist...that are the potential organs of terrorism.

Part of the real danger of groups like Al-Queyda is that they don't operate on a rational basis. Which is something we, in the West, can't quite wrap our heads around. For the average Al Quayda grunt, their ultimate goal isn't to improve living conditions or world status for thier peers... it is to die while killing infidels so that they can enter paridise. How do you begin to engage with that?

I personally think it's a mistake to go after terrorists in terms of a "war". These people are criminals. They should be treated as criminals, not as warriors.

Whenever we declare wars on vague "things" and not countries, we have a mess. "The War on Drugs" for example, is a very expensive, very large failure. "The War on Poverty" has similar problems. Now we're alledgedly fighting a "War on Terror". History is showing us that such efforts are costly and don't work.

From where I sit, Bush and his people are absolutely paralyzed when it comes to viewing terrorism in ways that will actually get to the root of the problem. Bush's large scale plan appears to have, in fact, emboldened terrorists to enter Iraq and go after the US that way.

MWS is absolutely correct that the solution to terrorism is more than just killing terrorists. I would go further to say that killing terrorists who engage in this sort of religious fervor only recruits more terrorists. These people aren't afraid of death. In fact they invite it and embrace it.

Our nation has some pretty difficult entanglements right now, especially with the Saudis. It's going to require long term pressure not just from the US, but from Europe (who consumes Saudi oil at a pretty high pace, too) to end the Wahabi clerics schools and encourage big time reforms. The House of Saud is going to have to change, too. A lot. And they won't do it unless they have no choice. Bush's tight friendship with these folks isn't helping in that regard...especially with the fact that a large percentage of Bush's campaign help comes from oil interests.

This is an incredibly complex and difficult problem. I don't think Kerry has articulated his solution to it in an especially engaging way. But I've watched Bush's plan...and it's creating more of a mess. Time to try something else.

Carla,

With all due respect, you start off saying interesting things, you make some really sophisticated points, and then you turn your attention to Bush, oil, and Saudi Arabia and your argument gets blown all to hell.

I think your analysis of the use of the word "war" in regards to some pretty big government screw-ups over the last four decades is exactly right. That been said, how the hell can anyone think that and then vote for John Kerry? He has proposed nothing but some good ole' fashion political rhetoric and unrealistic promises.

Bush has said for years now that the War on Terrorism will take commitment to change and sacrifice. I don't agree with every decision that has been made, but I think the Marshall Plan is exactly what this administration had in mind when it went into Afghanistan and then Iraq, and he so much as said so after September 11th in a number of speeches he gave on the issue. Was anybody listening to the same address to Congress that I was listening to? How can you look at the current efforts that are going on in both countries to build judicial systems, schools, hospitals, and democracies and say that this administration's policy in the War on Terror has no substance outside of killing terrorists?

Bush's plan is to draw terrorists into Iraq? Exactly, and it is the right strategy. Would you rather they be using their resources to organize another September 11th? Do you think this could be why there hasn't been another attack since? And if you can get rid of one of the most violent dictators in the history of the world at the same time, than why the hell not?

Bush has emboldened terrorist recruitment efforts? Give me one statistic that would support that argument. The terrorists that flew airplanes into buildings weren't recruited under George W. Bush, they where recruited under Bill Clinton, when this country's policy was to do absolutely nothing about Osama Bin Laden or Al Qaeda. As long as anyone didn't allow people like Saddam Hussein to do what he wanted in regards to the Middle East, Muslim fanatics where going to have no trouble with recruitment. So our option was to sit back and let Saddam roll over innocent countries and seek economic control over the Middle East, or do something about it. Are you honestly telling me that an expanded Iraqi regime, with more oil reserves, and a larger revenue flow would have been preferable? Because that is the very reason that terrorists where recruited, and they where having no problem long before George W. Bush was President. Granted, this would be a consistent argument for Kerry if he made it, given the fact that if he had it his way we would not have fought in the first Gulf War.

More to the point, Kerry's rhetoric isn't even that good. I can't believe anyone believes that the mere presence of his Presidency is going to create international cooperation or anything other than what is currently going on in Iraq, unless you truly believe that Kerry will cut and run, which would be a tragic mistake.

Kerry is simply using the "secret plan" strategy that Nixon used, and for the same purposes, those being the political ones. It was disgusting then, and it is disgusting now. Furthermore, this country was worse off because we believed Nixon then, and it will be worse off if we believe Kerry now. Only one candidate for President has given us any notion about what the next four years will look like, and I for one would argue that his direction is not that far off the right path.

Mathew:

I couldn't disagree more with you about Kerry's plan. Kerry wants to rebuild alliances with those that Bush has broken. This is a major tool to fight terrorism. We can't get the best intelligence or have unified pressure against states which foster terrorism in their borders. Also, the Saudis have most of the world over a barrel (no pun intended) on the oil issue. Especially since Bush intends to keep stirring the pot in Venezuela. Unless we find ways to ally ourselves with Europe and deal honestly with Venezuela..pressure on Saudia Arabia (where most of the 9/11 hijackers hailed from...as well as the largest contingent of Wahabi Clerics/schools). Kerry appears to understand this. Bush does not.

Bush is not only drawing terrorists into Iraq, he's creating more of them. As I mentioned, these people don't care if they die or not. In fact they WANT to die for their cause. We need to get to the root of this before these people are willing to die and take hundreds of Americans with them. And they're not just multiplying in Iraq. They're in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, the Phillipines,Iran, etc. We're not drawing them all into Iraq and blowing them up and that's the end of it. We're drawing them into Iraq while systematically creating more in other locations around the globe.

The current efforts to rebuild in Iraq and Afghanistan will continue to have trouble succeeding. There's too much motivation for terrorists to not allow it to succeed. Trying to kill them without addressing the deep rooted problems is like trying to treat cancer with just a knife and no medication. It just keeps coming back.

As far as Saddam goes...he was never part of the fundamentalist terrorist movement. In fact that was a lot of the reason that Iran and Iraq were at war...Saddam was a secularist, Iran was fundamentalist. He had nothing to do with fundamentalist terrorist recruitment whatsoever. It's flat out ill informed to suggest otherwise. Where fundamentalist terrorism lives is in places like Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Iran, etc. In the Saddam controlled regions of Iraq it was a secular government control.

If you'd like to argue the first Gulf War we can...because the first President Bush's people didn't exactly discourage Hussein on the invasion of Kuwait. The New York Times reported in September of 1999 that the US State Department told Hussein that Washington had "no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait." Further, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam. "...we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait...we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq." Given GHW Bush's chummy history with Saddam, it's hardly odd that Kuwait was invaded. Why Kerry is blamed for voting against that charade is beyond me.

Frankly the country is worse off now than it was with Nixon. Much of the world sees us as a pariah. We're continuing to push more people into terrorism. We're beginning to see an erosion of civil liberties as an excuse for security. And you apparently want four more years of this.

No thank you.

I personally think it's a mistake to go after terrorists in terms of a "war". These people are criminals. They should be treated as criminals, not as warriors.
I don't think it matters what we call them or our efforts. If they fight us in the streets, we'll treat them as enemy warriors. If they plot against us in the shadows, we'll hunt them down like criminals.

Carla, the points you make regarding "wars on..." are valid, but your dismissiveness is not. The reason such efforts have been ongoing and not especially fruitful is because they are efforts to deal witrh complex intractable problems, all of which will may never be entirely solved, only mitigated.

Ongoing efforts against terrorism must be made using a variety of approaches and may well only serve as mitigators. the merits and risks of a variety of ideas is worth discussing.

MWS is absolutely correct that the solution to terrorism is more than just killing terrorists. I would go further to say that killing terrorists who engage in this sort of religious fervor only recruits more terrorists. These people aren't afraid of death. In fact they invite it and embrace it.
I'd agree with this except for your use of the word "only," and if you take it out, the conclusions that follow from it change. If killing terrorists "only" resulted in the growth of terrorists, then it would make sense to abandon the approach of killing terrorists. But killing terroists, well, kills terrorists. And until we have a terrorists census that tells us how this amorphous population is changing from day to day, assertions that their ranks are growing can only be viewed as an unsupported allegation that shows up because it's a big part of your stock argument.

As far as I'm concerned, whoever wants to shout death to America and take up arms against us should be killed if we have the opportunity. Dangerous enemies who can't be dissuaded or reasoned with will be dealt with coldly, and I have no problem with that, and nor should you if you really get what the stakes are.

I agree that it's not the solution all by itself, as should be appparent by now. But it's a very substantial part of it. We must show strength and unwavering resolve, or we might as well give up now and stop wasting everyone's time.

I agree with Carla to the extent that this is not really a "war." However, I don't think you can just look at terrorists as merely criminals and not warriors. They certainly don't consider themselves criminals and they do consider themselves warriors. So I think it's a mistake to simply treat this as a law enforcement problem. It's much more than that.

As for killing terrorists, I agree with BK. You can't just focus on the root causes (and the FP article says so as well). To sort of mix metaphors, liberals have always talked about getting to the "roots" of crime by focusing on causes and prevention. But I think its been shown that first you have to get the criminals off the streets. Same with terrorists. Killing terrorists per se doesn't create more terrorists, but I do think that invading Muslim countries does. But you are not going to convert the hard-core terrorists and as long as they are there,it will be impossible to make any progress. The solution has to be a combination of military and non-military measures.

I'm not convinced Kerry really has a good handle on this, but, IMHO, Bush's policy has been a disaster. I think was correct to take out the Taliban, but I don't think invading Iraq has accomplished much.

Much of the problem is that people don't want to hear about having to spend money or complex ideas about democratization, etc. So candidates don't talk about them. I suspect Kerry's background makes him more likely ultimately to embrace these kinds of solutions (and, in fairness, I think a lot of the neocons believe in this too, but Bush doesn't want to spend money and Rumsfeld doesn't believe in this at all).

I'm also very disturbed about the Administration's seeming lack of concern about the civil liberties issues that have come up. I do agree that things have changed and that these are complex issues. But let's at least recognize there are issues. Bush has no sensitivity to this at all and that's scary.

Bush's plan is to draw terrorists into Iraq? Exactly, and it is the right strategy.

This is actually a terrible strategy. You assume that there's a fixed number of terrorists and everyone else is neutral. This is a central fallacy to the Bush doctrine. By invading Iraq, we've turned thousands, if not ten or hundreds of average Iraqi citizens and other disaffected people of the middle east into willing warriors.

Would you rather they be using their resources to organize another September 11th?

I would rather not be giving more people in the Middle East the motivation to try. It doesn't take an advanced degree in psychology to understand that things Abu Ghraib have given many in the Arab world enough of an incentive to fight back against us out of pride. And this isn't solely a Muslim or Arab thing. Think of Kamikaze pilots in Japan. Willing to die for a cause out of wounded pride is human nature. What is so correct about this original post (and the article it references) is that terrorism is a tactic of rebellion, not a regular war in itself. The key to winning the war on terror is simply not in trying to kill all the people that are willing to use the tactic, but to reduce the attractiveness of risking your life for the sake of rebelling.

Do you think this could be why there hasn't been another attack since?

No, there hasn't been another attack since because we're paying much closer attention now. If we were this vigilant before September 11th, it never would've happened. If we let ourselves miss that distinction and convince ourselves that we're safer because of Bush's tactics, we're well on the road to turning into Israel. Many people don't see a problem with that, they'll willingly sacrifice freedom for security. But what they're also forgetting is that Israel couldn't have protected itself the way it has without the financial and military support of the U.S. The question you have to ask, as we try to beat terrorism the same heavy-handed way as they have, is Who has our back?

ten or hundreds of thousands of average

sorry, it's too early for me... :)

I think the use of the term "war" is not entirely inappropriate. It can't just be treated as a "criminal" matter because police resources are insufficient to address it. Standing in between the U.S. criminal justice system and the organizers of the 9/11 attacks were some 40,000 Taliban foot soldiers armed with assualt rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers, artillery and main battle tanks. What would you propose, sending a couple of NYPD detectives over there with an arrest warrant?

The reason why this becomes a millitary matter (as well as law enforcement) is that requires millitary resources (training and equipment) in order to get at the terrorists in many of these instances. Law enforcement simply isn't equiped or trained to handle those kind of missions.

I personaly don't believe the Iraq invasion had very much to do with the war on terror. That's ok it was something that needed to be done (eventualy) anyway. Saddam was a Hitler wannabe. His stated goal was to establish a (secular) Pan-Arabic facist state spanning the entire Gulf region. That was not a goal that would have been acceptable to the rest of the world. He had engaged in wars of territorial expansion twice (Iran & Kuwait) in pursuit of that goal. Fortunately he got smacked down hard. It's true that he wasn't a threat to anyone externaly at the time we went in, but it's not like he or his regime were going away on thier own any time in the forseeable future. The cold hard fact is that if you think if you are sure you are going to have trouble with some-one in future the absolute best time to take them out is when they are at thier weakest. It's not nice but it is effective....but in the world of Realpolitik nice doesn't survive, effective does.

As a bonus we removed one blood thirsty, mass murding dictator from the world (yes I know there are plenty more where he came from....but that's kinda like saying if you can't stop all seriel killers you might as well not stop any). We also removed a source of REGIONAL terrorism and one which was responsible for giving sanctuary to murderes of American citizens (Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, etc). If we don't screw up the Peace (which I know is a very big "If") we can also provide a model for a modern democratized Arab state....which can be an influence on other states in the region and start to reduce some of the conditions that lead to extremism.

Right now Iraq is acting as a honeypot for terrorists from all over the Middle East. That is a good thing. Iraq is someplace where our millitary can actualy engage these people without extensive harm to U.S. civilians..... otherwise you'd be fighting these people on the streets of Chicago.

The question about whether through our actions, we are creating a vast stream of new terrorist recruits is a critical one. However, so far I haven't seen any actual evidence that this is the case...just conjecture and rhetoric. I think this conjecture is vastly overstated. I think anger toward the U.S. existed among radical Islam well before Iraq, I don't think it has been significantly increased by recent events....and I think it is almost inherent to radical Islams worldview. Resentment and anger might exist, but the fact is that there is only a limited supply of people with the personality to put thier necks on the line to act on those resentments.

The point about preventing the creation of new terrorists is a very valid and important fact. However you can't consider it to the exclusion of addressing the current generation of terrorists. These people are not going to go away on thier own...no matter how much we might try to placate them.

Finaly, I'd like to say a word about "rebuilding alliances". Building alliances is NOT a worthy goal in itself. It is only a worthy goal if those alliances provide a benefit to the nations involved and the world as a whole. Remember it was an intracite web of alliances that was largely responsible for embroiling the World in it's first World War. I'm not entirely sure that alliances with Russia, France and Germany would be worth the cost that it would take to secure them. Currently I see those nations more as contributors to the worlds problems then as solutions to it's ills. Thier objections to the Iraq invasion were not due to any humantarian concerns or desire for world/regional stability.... they were due to narrow economic concers. They are perfectly happy to prop up genocidal or territorialy expansive regimes as long as there are short term profits in it for them. France and Russia both engaged in arms sales to Iraq in the interwar years, in contravention of the embargo.

Just look at the situation with the Sudan today and you will see why I consider them part of the problem. Sudan is one of the largest sources of instability and breeding ground for terrorism in Northern Africa. It is the only nation in the world where chattel, slavery is legal. The current problems of the Sudan are largely due to the extremism of the ruling regime which is currently engaged in a campaign of genocide against it's black African population. Are Russia and France working to try to reform the regieme and alleviate the current conditions in the Sudan? No, they are actively engaged in proping up the regime and blocking any attempts to pressure it to reform. Russia has just concluded a sale of advanced fighter aircraft (Mig-29's) to the government in the Sudan. France has a 5 million barrel a day oil contract with the Sudan and has blocked any attempts to label the massacre that is occuring as "genocide" or to bring political pressure on the regieme to end it. Not only that, but it has gone so far as to refuse to lend assistance to humanitarian agencies in delivering food and medical supplies to the refugee camps of persons displaced by the violance. Something like 2 million persons in the Sudan are in danger of starvation. The government of Sudan is using famine as a weapon in it's campaign of genocide and France is complicit in it. Are these really nations that we WANT to have as allies?

Interesting comments on this topic.

I think the “War” on Terror is a war in the same sense as the Cold War, and it will probably take the same amount of time and effort to achieve success.

As far as Iraq as being beneficial or harmful to the war on terror, I think it’s too early to really tell. If we’re successful in creating a stable moderate gov’t in Iraq, it clearly will be beneficial to the region and help remove the underlying causes of terrorism. That’s a big “if” though.

It’s a digression, but I can’t let this Carla quote stand: “[Saddam] had nothing to do with fundamentalist terrorist recruitment whatsoever. It's flat out ill informed to suggest otherwise.” We might quibble over the term “recruitment”, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Iraq sponsored terrorism, much of it to organizations most people would call fundamentalist including Hamas and Hezbollah. You can argue that there is insufficient evidence that 9/11 hijacker Atta met with Iraqi officials in Prague, but there is a lot of evidence to back up the fact that Iraq was recruiting Islamists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague. Zarqawi, the head of the Islamist Ansar al Islam, spent time in one of Saddam’s private hospitals that normal Iraqis couldn’t use, and by many accounts, received help from the IIS before we invaded. Several times, Hussein has publicly supported Islamists and held conferences for them in Iraq. As a nod to them, he re-instigated some elements al Sharia law. This idea that because Saddam was a secular leader, Islamists and Iraq couldn’t possibly work together is a really weak argument.

I’d also say that it is a gross over-simplification to say the Iraq / Iran War was fought on the basis of religious differences. The strategic value of the Shatt al-Arab waterway and Western Iran oilfields far outweighed any religious intolerance. The Saudis and Kuwaitis who perhaps hypocritically consider themselves Wahabbis, helped finance Iraq during the war. The idea that it was a battle between secular and fundamentalist is really far off the mark.

I’m not suggesting that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 plot, or that Iraq was the biggest enemy in the war of terror. The US invasion of Iraq is certainly debatable and well-informed people can take opposite positions. However, the ideas that Iraq did sponsor terrorism or work with Islamist terrorists are pretty well documented and I wouldn’t consider it an argument of the “flat out ill informed”.

For those who continue to argue that Iraq or the rest of the Arabic world is any more against than they where before the war, and that Al Qaeda recruiting efforts have been emboldened, can you please provide evidence... I think it is a nice theory, but beyond that I don't see the substance in either statement. Same thing goes for those of you who argue our civil liberties have been violated. Is there even a case directly related to the Patriot Act that has been challenged in a court of law, or a provision of it that has been overturned?

The world sees us a pariah? I didn't hear loud boos during the parade of nations at the Olympics, nor have I seen massive protests that liberals have been predicting would occur, for months. I don't exactly see the billions in foreign aid that we allocate every year being sent back to us. Was that the UN that just re-established it's headquarters in Iraq and NATO that agreed to send forces to train Iraqi security forces? Hmmmmm.... It seems the evidence doesn't support the theory that the rest of world hates us evil American bastards, in fact, I would argue the contrary.

Really though, please, this is a serious election. If one is to argue that George W. Bush has turned us into the hated American empire than should not they at least provide us with some facts. Beyond some confrontations with France, and at times Russia and Germany, who all three had economic interests in Iraq, I think that argument really sucks. It lacks validity, and is nothing more than a bad campaign speech from a candidate that has not offered much as far as ideas of his own.

Mathew,

I'm not sure what you mean by "facts." There have certainly been plenty of articles written to the effect that the US is unpopular overseas. There have been polls showing increasing unpopularity and, recently, this appears to be extending to American citizens, not just the government. In fact the US Olympic Committee made it a point to tell the US athletes to lay low during the Olympics. True, there have not been mass protests against America but I'm not sure that proves anything. There is also a lot of anecdotal evidence from people that have traveled to Europe to suggest that the US is not very popular. Look, I'm no fan of the French and Germans and I find a lot of the blatant anti-Americanism annoying, but I don't think you can deny that it exists.

With respect to the effect on Iraq on Muslim attitudes toward the US, I have no "facts" other than newspaper articles that suggest it has been easier for Al Quaida to recruit. I partially agree with you to the extent that they already hate us, so you can't base your policy on trying to placate Al Quaida. I think we were correct to go into Afghanistan. But if you are trying to positively influence Muslim opinion in the ME, it seems logical that invading Iraq was not the way to do it.

As far as your comments about the Patriot Act, it's true that the act itself has not been overturned because nothing has actually come before the court. I suspect you are partially correct that the Patriot Act is probably not as bad as has been portrayed. But the acts of the Administration in detaining prisoners at Guantanamo and denying access to counsel for prisoners was decisely overturned by the Supreme Court recently. So, I don't think you are on very solid ground in saying there have been no civil liberties violations. At the very least, the Court has strongly rebuked the Administration for trying to usurp power to which it is not entitled. I think that's pretty significant.

I agree with the argument that France and Germany are pretty cynical actors and that their attitudes toward Iraq are at least partly influenced by their economic interests. But that doesn't necessarily make their views wrong. I don't think other countries should have a veto over our policy. But I also don't think we should simply ignore the opinion of our allies. There are reasons to have allies; it's a much easier world with friends than without. Even the most hardbitten realist would, I think, acknowledge that.

I've seen the same idea that "recruitment is up for Al Quaeda," but every time I see it, it is based on nothing more than a scattered anecdote or two, so until I see something more, I'm assuming that we really don't have much of a clue as to the fluctuations of the anti-american terrorist population. People seem so uncomfortable with recognizing it when they know much less than they wish they knew. I's a real problem. In my head, it's the norm, and I try to reflect it in my prose.

Every day I grow more weary of the partisan laps round the mulberry bush regarding the exact extent of Saddam Hussein's evil and the exact nature of his involvement with terrorists, or with 9/11 specifically. The sides talk AT each other: "He was evil BUT..." "he funded terrorism" "no he didn't" "not 9/11" "no direct connection" "yes but he enabled"

There has been no demonstration of any substantial direct connections of SH to 9/11, and few if any have suggested this. The remaining quarrel seems to be over what it signifies that there is no such major direct connection. Opponents of the Iraq invasion believe it means we should not have invaded Iraq. Supporters believe that regardless of 9/11 connections, SH's hands were bloody and dirty and that he had to go, and we were pretty much the only ones willing to do it.

Let's face that SH had connections to shady terrorist groups, that he regularly provided funds to support the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, making that tactic easier and more likely, and that he was a self-centered opportunist unlikely to cooperate too much with fundamentalist groups unless it served his purposes. SH wanted to BE allah, not spread allah's word.

I also tire of the declarations that Iraq is currently a disaster, as well as converse declarations that we have made great progress. Both of these declarations are the types made by people declaring as fact what they want to be the truth in oder to support their views as to how we proceed with our foreign policy.

I see it as very early in the game, like maybe "geez, it's already 3-3 and we're still in the first inning." If we succeed in establishing some semblance of a democratic islamic republic anything like Turkey, it will probably have been worth it. Will it have been worth it if the populace turns strongly against us and we have no chopice but to bail? I don't know how to answer that.

bk:

The problem with your argument is the Iraq Resolution that Congress passed giving Bush authority. What you posted above in terms of SH hands being dirty with the Palestinians or shady terrorist groups wasn't covered in that resolution.

I wrote a blog piece on this yesterday at PK. There's a link to the Resolution itself. The authority actually given the President was based on three specific criteria, one of which had to be met in order to take military action. Further, there is no authority given to conduct regime change in Iraq nor to occupy same.

Here's the PK post:

http://preemptivekarma.com/2004/08/questions-for-bushwould-you-do-it.html

Further, as a part of the mandate of the resolution, the President was required to make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate within 48 hours, his determination that going through diplomatic channels via Iraq would be harmful to the security of the US or couldn't get the UN resolutions enforced. To my knowledge, no such action was taken by Bush. (Or Hastert/Frist didn't bother to announce it to the public, which seems unlikely).

I tire of people saying that we're trying to bring democracy to the Middle East. The British tried to do that for centuries...with no success. What makes us think we can do it? And why should we be trying? Democracy is messy and difficult...and people have to WANT it. It can't be thrust upon them.

I think Carla is right that democracy cannot be imposed. But everything I have read suggests that one of the problems in the region (other than the Israel-Palestinean issue) is a lack of political outlets for people and corruption in the governments. We are paying the price for being perceived as supporting these governments. One alternative, I guess, would be just to wash our hands of these governments (e.g., Saudi Arabia) and walk away and let the chips fall where they may. But that's not realistic given our interests in Saudi Arabia (and don't kid yourself that oil is not important. People say "No blood for oil." Let's see how those people like it if we don't have the oil.) I think we have to be involved in the Middle East, both in solving the Palestinean issue and in trying to at least liberalize the regimes. This doesn't mean invading every country and making them democratic, but it does mean prodding our "allies" toward opening up the systems. I don't have any doubt that this will be extremely difficult and that we will face complicated issues. For example, how excited are we about the role of Islamist parties in these countries when they are likely to be the most organized groups, as we are seeing in Iraq? And we are going to have to do something about the Palestinean issue. There has to be some sort of settlement that will restore credibility to the US as an honest broker.

My point is I don't think we can just walk away from the region. I think the invasion was a mistake because I think, regardless of the merits of deposing Saddam, we have no business trying to change a country by force. But now that we are there, we have to make a go of it.

I would like to see a much more flexible approach to the region. Maybe Kerry would bring it and maybe not. But it's clear that Bush won't.