1

1. I'll no longer take it for granted that a President is telling the truth when he says our nation faces an imminent threat and we must invade another country.

2

Joe --

Regarding #3, you might see the new Carnegie report tracking very positive democratic developments in Kuwait: http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=19438&prog=zgp&proj=zme.

Also, is #3 really a gospel centered conviction?

Maybe you could elucidate on *why* you believe that democracy is untenable in the MENA. Is it b/c there are inherent conflicts between Arabism and democracy? Or is it because of poor policy/broken promises/and a bit of naiveté throughout the 20th century coming from the West?

You might consider that there are actually Arab NGOs and activists (for instance, www.annd.org) that are working for democratic reforms. What would you say to them? Give up???

3

Joe --

Regarding #3, you might see the new Carnegie report tracking very positive democratic developments in Kuwait: http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=19438&prog=zgp&proj=zme.

Also, is #3 really a gospel centered conviction?

Maybe you could elucidate on *why* you believe that democracy is untenable in the MENA. Is it b/c there are inherent conflicts between Arabism and democracy? Or is it because of poor policy/broken promises/and a bit of naiveté throughout the 20th century coming from the West?

You might consider that there are actually Arab NGOs and activists (for instance, www.annd.org) that are working for democratic reforms. What would you say to them? Give up???

4

Interesting perspectives and ones I'm sure you've thought through carefully.

5

1. I'll no longer take it for granted that a President is telling the truth when he says our nation faces an imminent threat and we must invade another country.

I'd like to submit this as the most predictable, least imaginative post of the day.

6

In addition ...

-- It has been proven that we cannot, as both President Bushes have stated, "export democracy" to others. Freedom and democracy must be desired. Some people are happy living in other systems of various levels of heavy authority. Latin America is another good example of that.

-- One can correctly assert that the Pluralists are going blindly to destruction while the rest of us might claw and fight to avoid such an end. The Pluralists have no reason to defend themselves, for the Rich and the Christian must be brought down. They just don't realize the cost.

-- All of our fighting in the wars through WWII was spirited. It was not until the UN conflicts that we grew war-weary. That has probably been the UN's greatest negative affect on us. Korea was too soon after WWII and, while our men fought well, the nation itself was still tired.

-- Let us not be naive in expecting God's protection. It's not automatic.

Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com

7

Joe, I think you are being very pessimistic, especially with respect to #3. Liberal democracy is a pretty new concept to most of the world; one hundred years ago it would have been hard to imagine liberal democracy taking hold in the Far East, but it is pretty firmly established in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan and is making inroads in China and much of the rest of the Far East. Things are also looking up in parts of the Middle East; Kuwait was mentioned and many of the other Gulf States are in the process of liberalizing. It's a slow process, but I am hopeful that we will see a substantial liberalization in the Middle East in my lifetime.

8

The war is ultimate hedonism.

#3 is racist. It sets up a false dichotomy between
i) Invasions that violate Just War criteria (last resort, proportionality, noncombatant immunity) can set up Jeffersonian democracies in one decade, and
ii) Arab culture can never attain democracies.

It's as if a cartoonish villain tied the unborn to the railroad tracks of Guantanamo, and there's a train-a-comin' of voter disgust. Get the baby off the tracks and run.

9

1. Democracy cannot be imposed by outside force. This would apply to much of the Middle East but even there it can and does grow organically. While everyone frets about Iraq countries like Turkey have been democratic for generations. Other countries like Dubai have made dramatic reforms towards openness.

I think the problem isn't so much what we do but what we are. By having such overwhelming power anti-democratic forces either unite against us or try to ally with us thereby preventing healthy democracies from being established. One of the biggest anti-democratic regimes in the area is Saudi Arabia whose leadership has explicitly choosen to ally with us and uses the story, "we're holding back all those crazy jihadists!" to avoid criticism. Iran's leaders use our failed support of the Shah to hold back democratic forces. But in places where we have been relatively hands off democracy can happen even in Muslim countries.

2. There's a difference between genocide and civil war. Who exactly is being targetted for genocide in Iraq? Instead we have Sunni and Shiites, both rather well armed and able to draw from foreign supporters (Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan vs Iran). This is not Bosnia where a single ethnic group was picked out and slaughtered by more powerful enemies. The only example here that might apply to is the Kurds and most withdrawl plans would leave us in Northern Iraq to keep the Kurds safe.

3. I no longer believe we have the will to win against global jihadism. Whatever this war is about it has nothing to do with global jihadism. As Bush's own intelligence analysis has indicatd terrorists have become more powerful due to this war. After so many years, Al Qaeda is better off today than it was after 9/11.

To maintain the delusion that this is about fighting jihadism is to defy the reality that has been smacking us in the face over and over again. Those who maintain this lost argument do not even speak logically. What about this Iraq adventure is preventing jihadists from attacking America at home? Remember it takes one, two, three people to make a terrorist attack. It's hardly like all jihadists are tied up in Iraq. Instead Iraq is serving as a huge terrorist training school for jihadists where they can go and practice kidnapping, murder and making improvised bombs.

4. I no longer believe that we can fight wars by proxy. On the contrary, fighting wars by proxy has been rejected by this administration in favor of fighting wars directly...with horrible consquences.

Proxy wars have a very good advantage. They require you to get others to 'buy into' your cause. The forerunners to the Taliban brought into our more general struggle against communism in Afghanistan. We provided them with weapons and advice and they fought for their homeland. In the first Gulf War Bush I assembled a truely international coalition to oust Iraq from Kuwait. Granted the US military did most of the fighting but many, many nations 'brought in' to the cause. Fighting by proxy also isolates your enemy by removing potential friends from his playing field leaving him isolated. Both sides did this in the Cold War by trying to recruit developing nations.

Proxy also is good because it provides a good feedback mechanism to check foolish wars. The reason the US won the Cold Wars has as much to do with the wars it didn't fight as the wars it did. It didn't go to war to make Taiwan an independent country. It didn't go to war to liberate Tibet or North Korea. We would have found few supporters for such an adventure and just as good since such actions could have spirialed out of control into a nuclear confrontation. Likewise for the USSR the lack of 'proxy support' helped end the failed invasion of Afghanistan and probably held radicals in check who would have advocated sending in the troops to stop the fall of East Germany/East Berlin. While the USSR fell anyway it probably would have fallen faster and with more blood had it embraced those alternative policies.

Proxy has been ignored by this administration, not embraced. This has been diasterous for the 'global war on terror'. The entire world easily sees through our lies. They know our claims to, say, support democracy and human rights have little meaning because they see us turn around and ignore Pakistan, Saudi Arabia etc. They see neocons trying to drum up support for a new misadventure in Iran by noting Iranian foreign fighters in Iraq but they also see them ignore the fact that most foreign fighters captured in Iraq are coming from Saudi Arabia. A Muslim living, in say India, is more rather than less likely to join an jihad orientated group because of this administration's policies.

Given that how can anyone who objectively supports the war on terror support this administration?

10

"Thinking that freedom could take root in the blood-soaked soil of Arab culture was a naive assumption."

It managed to take root in the blood-soaked soil of European culture.

11

Joe:

Would you change anything on your list if we win in Iraq?

12

1. I used to believe Americans cared mored about their nation winning its wars than their favortie sports team winning its division.

2. I no longer think the people of America are worthy of the sacrifice made on their behalf by the military.

3. I used to think that after 9/11 Americans wouldn't force her soldiers to fight another overlawyered, politically correct war.

4. I used to believe Arabs were worthy of liberating. They have proven the old adage you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. We did the heavy lifting of removing the oppressors yoke, and they decided killing eachother was a better use of their time.

5. America is no longer the preeminent power on the globe. We are on an inexorable slide, having lost the belief in ourselves and our culture. Americans would rather have comfort, entertainment and cheap goods, as such nations like India and China will become better educated, wealthier, and more economically.

Only Christ can change people, one heart at a time.

13

In addition ...

-- It has been proven that we cannot, as both President Bushes have stated, "export democracy" to others. Freedom and democracy must be desired. Some people are happy living in other systems of various levels of heavy authority. Latin America is another good example of that.

-- One can correctly assert that the Pluralists are going blindly to destruction while the rest of us might claw and fight to avoid such an end. The Pluralists have no reason to defend themselves, for the Rich and the Christian must be brought down. They just don't realize the cost.

-- All of our fighting in the wars through WWII was spirited. It was not until the UN conflicts that we grew war-weary. That has probably been the UN's greatest negative affect on us. Korea was too soon after WWII and, while our men fought well, the nation itself was still tired.

-- Let us not be naive in expecting God's protection. It's not automatic.

Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com

14

1. I believe in many ways this is correct. Americans don't really want to fight wars for unlimited duration. They want objectives and to achieve those objectives.

2. You explanation doesn't match up with fighting wars by proxy. I believe Americans will support certain sides in a conflict to further American interests.

3. You are absolutely correct here. The minor improvements in some of the smaller Arabic states are swamped by the examples of Palestine, Iraq, Iran, and Lebanon. If Egypt had free elections, the Muslim Brotherhood would win. The same goes for virtually every other Muslim country. There are all manner of religious and cultural reasons for why a true democracy will not take hold in the Middle East.

George, it isn't racist to point out that some cultures are not amenable to democratic institutions. To say such a thing isn't to pass judgment on the culture or it's people, but describes the situation. Groups do have characteristics.

4. I think Americans care if they didn't believe that the moment they leave, the side they protected will then proceed to do the same things to the other party. Kosovo is a good example where the Muslims are now driving out the Christians. So, what is going to happen in Iraq is that the Shia are going to get revenge on the Sunni. We can't stop it unless we send men there to get killed daily to try and stop it.

5. Americans want to win but right now there is no leadership. No one in power has defined the enemy. To define the enemy would call into question certain liberal assumptions that both the Democrats and Republicans hold. Instead, I think most American realize we are floundering without a plan. As such, most people would rather do nothing until we have a clear goal of what we want to achieve.

15

3. I used to think that after 9/11 Americans wouldn't force her soldiers to fight another overlawyered, politically correct war.

What war are you talking about? Certainly not the Iraq War which is hardly politically correct (politically incoherent perhaps). As for overlawyered, this administration has demonstrated nothing but contempt for the law on just about all fronts from the laws against torture to the Justice Dept. which has become nothing more than a facilitator of administration perjury.

5. America is no longer the preeminent power on the globe. We are on an inexorable slide, having lost the belief in ourselves and our culture. Americans would rather have comfort, entertainment and cheap goods, as such nations like India and China will become better educated, wealthier, and more economically.

Our culture has always been commerce, the persuit of happiness and a love-hate relationship withthe idea of evangelical 'free nation building' (I'm not using evangelical in the religious sense but in the Wilsonian sense of going out there and 'fixing' the rest of the world).

We have slipped because we forgot that we are the preeminent influence inthe world and focused only on our power. Power, though, is often the enemy of influence when it is used. We lost a lot of our credability that we had after 9/11 not because of our people (I notice how blame shifting and refusal to take responsibility has now become the norm for Republican types) but because of the stupid policies of our President. Blame where blame is due, I don't doubt for a second Bush/Cheney would leap to take full credit for anything good that happened or happens whether or not they had anything to do with it.

16

On #3, I think Michael Yon's report on a "town meeting" might form the basis for Arab society embracing freedom and democracy. However, town hall type institutions and practices might/will take a long time to take root and change expectations of "how things are done".

I also think that more and more we are losing those same institutions and reflexes as more and more of our governmental power and responsibility shifts away from the local level.

17

Joe wrote:
These numbers show that our the anti-war sentiment is due not to an intolerance for mass casualties but rather to an ingrained opposition to foreign entanglements. For better or worse, America is at heart an isolationist, semi-pacifist nation.

I think that both of these factors have some influence, but I agree that the main problem is our isolationism.

That said, I am forced to wonder how WWII would have gone if CNN and Reuters had been on the scene to show us graphic (and occasionally fake) footage of every dead American GI and every bombed-out German house....

After Iraq, the use of military force for humanitarian intervention will be all but nonexistent. Darfur, you're on your own.

With all due respect, this conclusion has been obvious for some time.

That's why the "Save Darfur!" folks are starting to annoy me. It's not that Darfur doesn't deserve to be saved. The evidence is overwhelming; the Darfur crisis is the worst outrage of our new millennium. Somebody needs to do something ... but who? And what?

Humanitarian measures won't be much more effective than a Band-Aid to treat a severed limb. Crying to the UN will accomplish absolutely nothing. As much as I'd love to believe otherwise, the only human action that could save Darfur is military force.

Which won't happen. So why are we continuing to kid ourselves? We're going to let them all die. Claiming otherwise is merely a vain attempt to soothe one's wounded conscience.

18

After Iraq, the use of military force for humanitarian intervention will be all but nonexistent. Darfur, you're on your own.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that there was some type of waiting list for using military force for humanitarian intervention. So let me get this straight...now the reason we invaded Iraq was for humanitarian reasons and the plan was that once Iraq was fixed we would go onto Darfur...but now that the US has turned all hippiesh Iraq ain't going to be done and Darfur is out of luck? Recall that the original story was that we were invading Iraq because Saddam had WMD and we had to make sure he didn't give them to Al Qaeda.

Humanitarian measures won't be much more effective than a Band-Aid to treat a severed limb. Crying to the UN will accomplish absolutely nothing. As much as I'd love to believe otherwise, the only human action that could save Darfur is military force.

I went into this on a post that seems to be caught in Joe's filter. Essentially there's a serious flaw with:

4. I no longer believe America cares about genocide.

1. Iraq is in a Civil War. Genocide is when one group slaughters a largely defenseless other group. That is not the case in Iraq. Both sides are armed, know how to kill each other and are able to recruit help from the outside (Sunnies from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan....Shias from Iran). Perhaps the death toll from civil war will be on the scale of genocide but it isn't the same thing and people who confuse the two should be challenged.

2. Genocide is rather easy to stop. It's pretty easy to see the group with all the weapons and arms and fight them. While I'm not sure I agree Darfur cannot be saved through non-military means there's no real connection with getting out of Iraq and intervening in Darfur. One can consitently and logically support a policy intervention in Darfur but withdrawl in Iraq.

3. On that last point, we should note that it would appear that most supporters of intervention in Iraq (or at least the ones with decision making power) appear to oppose intervention in Darfur. If they didn't why hasn't it happened yet?

19

How many wars in history have been short? WW1, WW2, US Civil War--you can think of more.

How many have been long? "Hundred years war," Cold War, Arab Israeli war, Spanish Reconquista, Russian Reconquista, Indian wars--we could go on and on. (110 years, 45 years, 60+ years, 500 years, 200 years, 300 years)

I'm afraid the current campaign has more characteristics of wars of the second class than the first.

And a short attention span means either 1) you lose or 2) you have to go fight again in a tougher situation.
Of course a short attention span wouldn't be a bad thing if you didn't have real enemies, which seems to be a disputed matter.

20

James,

There's no evidence that Iraq is going badly because the public has a 'short attention span'. On the contrary, if anything, the public's short attention span and relative indifference to the war has allowed Bush to get away with the shifting stories, outright lies, and general foolishness for a lot longer than any other President would have had.

21

At the end of the day I think the historians are going to write the history of Iraq as follows:

This was a beta test of a failed idea. The idea at the end of the Cold War was that the US, being the only superpower left, could pick up where Wilson left off. It could finally bring the world out of the dark ages and into a new age of peace, prosperity with universal respect for human rights and democracy.

Bush Sr. had flirted rhetorically with the idea in the first Gulf War. While paleocons attacked his "New World Order" the war itself was quite old world. It prevented one country from destabalizing a strategically sensitive region by invading another country and possibly threatening Saudi Arabia's oil fields.

During the Clinton years nation building was tried in very small scale projects. Some were somewhat successful such as Hati, others were seen as failures but they did not result in necessarily unacceptable outcomes (Somalia, inherited from Bush Sr.).

Around this time the question started to be tossed around; Why can't the US just take this opportunity to 'fix' the big problems with the world. No one really knew what would happen if the US tried to massively change 'problem countries' like North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt etc.

The reasoning appeared sound. Most people knew the systems of the developed world worked better than the developing world. Immigrants from developing countries quickly and easily adapted to Western freedom. There was no longer an opposing superpower like the USSR that was seeking to counter 'nation building' with their own type of agenda.

Ironically, though, the paleocons were right for once. They criticized the endeavor with a number of good points:

1. Per Burke, a society is a complicated organism. Attempts to understand it from a purely rational basis was the worse type of hubris. In other words, there are things in any society that seem irrational or even evil but they are there for reasons that are not easily understood. Take petty corruption. It may seem like the most natural thing in the world to demand a country 'get with it' and stop its official from demanding and taking small bribes to get things done. But such a country has probably built up its own set of norms and customs. Trying to sweep in and stamp out bribery all at once is like doing an operation with a shovel. It ends up breaking a lot more than it fixes.

2. Historically this was tried before. Britain had undertook the 'white man's burden' of civilizing the developing world. Leaving aside the criticisms of colonialism the fact was that the UK had to work hard at its efforts. Large numbers of officers were kept in places like India for decades learning the language, becoming part of the culture as they also changed it. There was no overnight process.

3. Influence is more relevant to positive change than raw power. Influence builds natural allies. Commerce is a good example of this. Global companies tend to be a positive force for change in developing nations. They don't do that by sending militias into them to blow up state subsidized competitors but by influence. They find out who makes important decisions and seeks to establish good relations with them. There's a lot less 'action' here than in bombing but over the long run these forces effect much more change.

22

Boonton,

I think you've nailed it. I agree with everything you wrote. The aftermath of 9/11 had an interesting effect on our decision about what to do next.

In a lot of ways Afghanistan was too easy. Basically a few thousand American special forces backed by air power and local fighters took down a country in a few weeks. I think that Afghanistan wasn't seen as sufficient payback for what had happened on 9/11. With our stunning success in Afghanistan, it was only natural for planners to believe that with an order of magnitude more troops, we could accomplish the same thing in Iraq. Basically we bacame like the sports team who believes what the press writes about them.
What wasn't taken into account was that Afghanistan was a dysfunctional barely stone age country, and Iraq was not. I think that had Afghanistan been tougher, and more bloody for both sides, the American people and the administration wouldn't have been so eager for a second war.

23

JohnW 1. I'll no longer take it for granted that a President is telling the truth when he says our nation faces an imminent threat and we must invade another country.

I'm not exactly sure how you could have learned that lesson from this case since the President (i.e., Bush) never said our nation faced an "imminent threat."

js Regarding #3, you might see the new Carnegie report tracking very positive democratic developments in Kuwait:

Reading the report I found nothing that conflicted with #3. Kuwait is a constitutional monarchy. The Carnegie report shows that there is the potential for reforms that would make the country a more liberalized constitutional monarchy. While that is laudable, that is a long, long way from a liberal democracy.

Also, is #3 really a gospel centered conviction?

Absolutely. The only reason that liberal democracies exist is because of the influence of the Gospel on Western culture. In cultures where that influence is lacking we shoudn't be surprised to find that certain ideas cannot flourish.

Maybe you could elucidate on *why* you believe that democracy is untenable in the MENA. Is it b/c there are inherent conflicts between Arabism and democracy?

That's a great question and one that would probably take an entire post to fully explain. But I will give one example of why I don’t believe democracy is currently tenable. Arab culture is torn between two dominant, competing ideaologies: pan-Arabism and pan-Islamism. (Re Wikipedia: "While Pan-Arabism advocates the unity and independence of Arabs regardless of religion, pan-Islamism advocates the unity and independence of Muslims regardless of race.") Neither of these movements is compatible with liberal democracy.

You might consider that there are actually Arab NGOs and activists (for instance, www.annd.org) that are working for democratic reforms. What would you say to them? Give up???

Not at all. Although a struggle might be Quixotic, it doesn't mean people should not try. I think such groups are sowing the seeds for political reform that will need 50-100 years to bloom.

Things are also looking up in parts of the Middle East; Kuwait was mentioned and many of the other Gulf States are in the process of liberalizing. It's a slow process, but I am hopeful that we will see a substantial liberalization in the Middle East in my lifetime.

I don’t disagree. But look at the timeline you mention in your last sentence -- "in my lifetime." I too believe that over a long period of time (I'd add a few more years to your estimate) that we will see the ME move toward liberal democracy. But that is a long time away, particularly when the American people make timelines that are based on political objectives being accomplished in weeks rather than decades.

Greg Johnson #3 is racist.

#3 can't be "racist" because the Arabs are not a race. You could have said it was "culturalist"--meaning that some cultures are superior to others--and I would have agreed that you are right. I am an unapologetic "culturalist."

ii) Arab culture can never attain democracies.

You need to read my post more carefully. I never say that Arab culture can never attain democracies. I said that they are "currently unable" to do so.
Rob Ryan It managed to take root in the blood-soaked soil of European culture.

Yes, it did. But only because Christianity laid the groundwork and made it possible. Christianity gives us the concept of all men being created equal -- an ideal that is lacking in both Muslim and Arab culture.

jd Would you change anything on your list if we win in Iraq?

That question was worth bumping up into the post itself. See there for my response.

James I'm afraid the current campaign has more characteristics of wars of the second class than the first.

Excellent point. Even if the Iraq War were to last a decade it would still be, historically speaking, a rather short war.

24

jd,

Would you change anything on your list if we win in Iraq?

Exactly. We're going to finish winning this war, and then at least one or two items on Joe's list will look different.

25

jd,

Would you change anything on your list if we win in Iraq?

Exactly. We're going to finish winning this war, and then at least one or two items on Joe's list will look different.

26

Colin,

Could you explain what you mean by "pluralist"?

I thought freedom loving americans respected people of differing faiths and viewpoints and pluralism was something we cherished in this country. Pluralism means respecting people's right to believe differently then us and realizing their thoughts have value and worth despite being different than ours, right?

Is there something wrong with pluralism or am I misunderstanding the term, pluralist?

27

I agree with your insights on the whole, but I think that much of the reason for them goes back to the counterculture movement of the 60s. Hence what was an anomaly during Vietnam is no longer an anomaly today (because the counterculture movement has gained many converts.) And what would be a just war to the largely Christian culture of the 40's will no longer be a just war to the pacifist culture of today.

It is difficult to say whether pessimism is an appropriate response. I certainly think the orthodox Christian worldview could make a resurgence in our culture but I also think that the impacts of the cultural revolution of the 60's are deep. If the former prevails there is reason for hope. If the latter prevails, our nation may soon be gone.

28

Joe,
You said:

I'm not exactly sure how you could have learned that lesson from this case since the President (i.e., Bush) never said our nation faced an "imminent threat."

How did I get the impression Iraq was an "imminent threat" from the rather prominent statements coming out of the Bush administration-that's how. Joe, sorry for the long paste below, but maybe it will refresh your memory. If you are still able to say the administration didn't portray Iraq as an immiment threat, sorry, I think you are trying parse words like Bill Clinton when he said, "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is".

Question, if Iraq was not an imminent threat, what's your reason for supporting the invasion and occupation of that country?

Some of the statements which could cause a reasonable person to believe Iraq was an imminent threat are posted below:

"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
- White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
- President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
- President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
- Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
- President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
- President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
- Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Well, of course he is."
- White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. …Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
- President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
- President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
- President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
- President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
- President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
- President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
- President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
- President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
- President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
- President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons. "
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02

[www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b24970.html]

29

I think it's too simplistic to make the war in Iraq all about establishing a democracy; or even about Hussein.

I do believe that the American people are by nature, isolationists, and becoming more so each year. We want to fence ourselves in, fence the world and it's brand of evil out, and continue to live a fairly peaceful & prosperous life. (very unrealistic given the fact that the world has become very small)

The President may *appear* incompetent, especially concerning this war; but I believe that the problems, crisis', the interwoven intrigue of the rising threats we face, etc....is more than one human being is able to correctly and fairly manage. My point being "one human being".

Being a news-aholic has made me believe my Bible even more as I see world events and conflicts spiral to new heights with greater possibility for massive destruction in many arenas. I am not optimistic about America's future. With all our wealth & power, our collective will is weak. I can easily visualize the lamentation over "Babylon" in Revelation being read over the US.

30

JohnW,

The Pluralists would remove liberty for the sake of an enforced pluralism.
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/7/25/135844/964/Front_Page/The_Same_Old_Exclusion
It's not simple open liberalism. Just another way to enforce a secular society.

Collin

31

Colin,

If the pluralist is wrong, what is the more correct way?

I ask because I want to get a sense of what your thinking is on the matter.

I think I may be in agreement with you somewhat. We need absolute liberty, an open market place of ideas, and no-one should tell churches what to believe.

Churches should be free to practise their faith. It's not a perfect analogy, but what do we do in this country when churches decide in order to practice their faith they must discriminate against people of other races in their hiring of personel or admitting people into their colleges? Should the policy be to always let churches do what they want or is there a certain point when it's legitimate for the government to intervene. What if it was a religious group that had illegal drugs in its ceremonies or marriages between pre-teens?

32

JohnW,
I don't know if we can have any completely or absolutely libertarian system. There are always restrictions on somebody. We began as an open system with minimal government interference. That's a practical liberalism.

Your point about chruches and race is a good one for this discussion. (I'm white and dated a black girl when attending Bible college -- in the 70s.) So I hate the racism as much or more than any Liberal. At the same time I don't like the idea of thought police gelling the private association of a church (even if it is morally wrong) to be told how to behave. Sadly, the Left has long ago set aside the First Amendment in favor of control and manipulation, particularly via 501(c)(3)-based intimidation. The Ninth Amendment was to protect us from this nonsense, but alas.
There are compromises in terms of things like drug use and zoning. But those are generally external matters to church life, so dealing with hypotheticals is difficult. Unfortunately matters of race today are construed to include matters of gay rights so as to force a church to redefine "sin" and forcing acceptance would be a government enforcement of doctring. That should be a concern, but unfortunately many on the Left do not find it a problem. Or perhaps they've not yet thought about the implications.

33

More and more, I find myself believing what our country needs is a Ron Paul libertarian type of government and I think after our country bankrupts itself with all it's military spending and foreign adventures, his ideas will get a serious look. At this point it would be very difficult to implement his ideas.

Personally, I don't have a problem with letting a homosexual live his life and having a formalized relationship with his/her partner, but I know it's difficult for some churches to accept this.

34

I'm with ucfengr. I think it is cynical and false to say that Arab states cannot support liberal democracy. I just got back from three months in the Middle East, and it is a weird place, but probably not so different than a lot of Christian nations were 100-500 years ago (depending on which country you pick). I am also reconsidering how liberalism could take hold in the region, but I still think it is tenable in the long run.

35

I agree with your insights on the whole, but I think that much of the reason for them goes back to the counterculture movement of the 60s. Hence what was an anomaly during Vietnam is no longer an anomaly today ...

What was an anomaly during Vietnam was Vietnam. Show me what precedent there is in US history for the public tolerating very long, very protracted conflicts in foreign cultures with unclear objectives and unclear direct benefits to the US? Even in the World Wars, which were much shorter and involved a fighting in a foreign land that we had a much more direct understanding and relationship too there was deep skepticism.

Furthermore, why shouldn't there be deep skepticism of such conflicts? The fact is we don't know much about Vietnam, about Iraq for that matter. The fact is the benefit to effecting massive change in those countries is uncertain and unclear. War by definition is a radical policy. Radical policies should not be easily embraced or even tolerated. Let's be frank, if we were talking about some national emergency that required us to increase tax rates by 3 points it would generate a huge amount of contraversy and discussion and probably be very hard to pass. Yet that is much less a policy than embarking on a war that looks to be closing in on a decade long.

When people say things like how would WWII have played out with CNN they are forgetting the most obvious thing in the world. THIS ISN'T WWII! (BTW, something like WWII did play in front of CNN, it was the first Gulf War which didn't have a fraction of the problems as this one because back then the White House was occupied by actual grown ups)

Now compare this to what jo anne wrote:

The President may *appear* incompetent, especially concerning this war; but I believe that the problems, crisis', the interwoven intrigue of the rising threats we face, etc....is more than one human being is able to correctly and fairly manage. My point being "one human being".

Could you say this about WWII? To understand why we went to war in WWII you don't have to resort to 'interwoven intrigue'. Yes there are hundreds of books written about WWII and why it happened but a single sentence can summarize why the US was in it on the side it was on. Can you do the same for this war?

"Interwoven intrigue" is just a way of saying Bush doesn't know what he is doing and he hopes you don't notice it. The crisis the world faced in WWII was ten thousand times worse than anything faced in the last ten years yet supporters of this regime act as though we are facing a greater threat that is...well gosh just so hard for our poor President.

What is so hard is that we picked someone to run the country who is not up to the job.

36

Boonton,

Competence aside, the American people believed the Democrat alternative was worse in 2004. I worry that America is never going to be able to elect a president that more than half the country will regard as competent.

I agree with you that this war really doesn't affect most Americans either financially or becasue they don't know anyone in the military. As a result, the war is merely another partisan issue to argue over and score points for one side or another.
Ultimately, if we really believed that the War on Terror was a generational struggle for our existence, we wouldn't be scuffling along with a peace dividend sized Army. If a Democrat was president, you can bet conservatives would be going nuts that the size of our military hasn't increased.

37

I hope that you are wrong about #4 and #5, but you are probably not.

38

I no longer believe that Joe Carter isn't a liar (well, I didn't believe it in the first place):

"I'm not exactly sure how you could have learned that lesson from this case since the President (i.e., Bush) never said our nation faced an "imminent threat."

"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
• President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
• President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
• President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
• President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02

39

Ultimately, if we really believed that the War on Terror was a generational struggle for our existence, we wouldn't be scuffling along with a peace dividend sized Army.

That's the bottom line, isn't it? The government and various pundits have tried to convince us that this is a WWII-level struggle for our very existence, but a lot of people don't believe it. I certainly don't.

40

Joe,

I hate to say this but i'm seriously saddened by what I'm seeing as the decline of a wonderful blog. And I believe the beginning of this decline can be marked by the date you joined your newest job.

Your reasoning here is confused and muddled. That sounds more like my own sort of reasoning, not the reasoning of a fellow like yourself who usually helps me to think better.

There are two areas where I think you need to seriously pray and rethink your positions.

First:

Unfortunately, I think that question is already moot. The object in war is to impose your will on your enemy. You "win" the war if you can impose your will on the enemy and destroy his will to fight.

This can be true but isn't necessarily true. By your definition, we shouldn't fight against terrorists and terrorism because they live to die killing us. There is almost no way, using our military, to "win" this sort of a conflict. By definition we never could have had any success in Iraq. Even if we went in on day one, toppled Saddam Hussien, killed his sons, and the people all rejoiced, we would still have lost if 1 tenth of 1 percent of the Iraqi's continued to set off car bombs, bring in foreign allies, and kill their fellow arabs and islamists.

You've raised the bar of victory so high that it is impossible to leap over.

I on the other hand believe we will have won in Iraq if we are able to leave there with them having their current democracy in place and all the while they are able to protect themselves from our enemies. Still a pretty difficult task to accomplish.

But it's going to be odd five years from now if Iraq is a stable Democracy, we're no longer there (except perhaps a base like we had in Saudi Arabia) and their culture and economy is flourishing. How you will have to tie yourself in knots explaining how we lost.

Second:

I no longer believe that Arab nations are capable of sustaining liberal democracies.

This sort of cleverness is beneath you. Alright, so do you believe that Arabn nations are capable of sustaining Democracies? It seems like no one who responded to you recognized that you had to throw in the "liberal" democracies part in order to make that statement appear true. Of course these countries aren't going to go from dictatorship to "liberal" democracy in a decade or two. But wouldn't that be too much to ask of any country, Arab or no? Especially if these countries are only just now getting their first taste of Democracy?

I'm satisfied with Iraq's current Democracy, even though it may not be classified as "liberal".

So you seem to build on this impossible state of being for Arab countries and say we've lost. And yet I see it as a huge victory for the Bush Administration and the United States if we are able to leave Iraq a Democracy, even if a little unstable, rather than a stable dictatorship.

I dunno if you're just depressed over Fred Thompson, stressed due to work, or what. But i'm seriously starting to worry about you Joe. Not your ideology or your convictions, but your physical health. It sometimes can have an effect on our cognitive processes.

Please do yourself a favor and get more rest. Get away from the computer for a little while and enjoy God's green nature. No worries, your blog will still be here when you get back.

God Bless.

41

Competence aside, the American people believed the Democrat alternative was worse in 2004.

Well it would seem most now believe they made a mistake.

Ultimately, if we really believed that the War on Terror was a generational struggle for our existence, we wouldn't be scuffling along with a peace dividend sized Army. If a Democrat was president, you can bet conservatives would be going nuts that the size of our military hasn't increased.

In the year 2001 the defense budget was $304B (see http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf page 53).

In the year 2008 the proposed defense budget is $606B.

In, say, 1985 when the Cold War was supposedly pretty hot the budget was $252B. Even adjusting for inflation (using Tom's inflation calculator at http://www.halfhill.com/inflation.html) that yields an equilivant budget of $489B.

Whatever you want to say about terrorism the fact remains that terrorists have no armies. They are irregulars with haphazard training, little equipment and few bases of operation. They are nothing compared to the USSR which had all of those things and we are spending 25% more than back when we were facing that.

So this brings us to exactly what do you think the defense budget should be? It looks like we nearly doubled our spending since 9/11. What should we have brought that we didn't that would make you happy?

Sorry to pick on jo anne but this is just another variation of "Interwoven intrigue". If you want to spend $1 Trillion you better be able to articulate exactly what you need to do with it and what benefit will be gained from spending it. If you want to get 3-4,000 US soldiers killed you better be able to do the same. Let's talk about a 'generational struggle' against terrorism. Bush's own intelligence assessment was that Al Qaeda was stronger and posed a greater threat to the US homeland today than it did right after 9/11. The only objective conclusion here is that we did not spend our resources wisely.

42

Mike,

C'mon, Mike,isn't that a little strong. Joe's not a liar-he's just wrong or perhaps ideologically misguided. Perhaps, he meant the President didn't say the actual specific words, "Iraq is an imminent threat" regardless of what he was trying to communicate with the american public.

Myself, the only reason I initially supported the Invasion of Iraq was because I was convinced Iraq was an immiment threat that had to be deal with right away. Now it could very well be that I, and millions of others, simply misunderstood what the President and his administration was trying to communicate to the public with regards to Iraq. Perhaps Joe could tell us what that was?

The thing that gets me is why on earth would a professing christian (and I'm not saying Joe is not one) or for that matter anyone concerned about the sanctity of life, would support the invasion and occupation of a country if he did not believe that country posed a imminent threat to our country's security. I don't know how this could fit withing the parameters of a "just war".

43

C'mon, Mike,isn't that a little strong. Joe's not a liar-he's just wrong or perhaps ideologically misguided. Perhaps, he meant the President didn't say the actual specific words, "Iraq is an imminent threat" regardless of what he was trying to communicate with the american public.

As far as I see it Joe was probably just wrong. If Joe was really trying to play a word game like Bush "didn't say the actual specific words" then Joe would be a liar like Bush. It's clear Bush wanted us to think Iraq was indeed an imminent threat.

The thing that gets me is why on earth would a professing christian (and I'm not saying Joe is not one) or for that matter anyone concerned about the sanctity of life, would support the invasion and occupation of a country if he did not believe that country posed a imminent threat to our country's security

Indeed, war is a radical policy that should have overwhelming justification.

Baggi
I no longer believe that Arab nations are capable of sustaining liberal democracies.

An interesting point, if Arab nations are not capable of sustaining liberal democracies then what are we doing in Iraq? Waiting to put a strong dictator in place? Well there already was one there, all this money and lives to end up where we started from? Or are we supposed to be there forever having our troops blown up in groups of 3-10 as they try to direct traffic in Baghdad?

44

America is winning in Iraq:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2126636,00.html

And the latest Pew Report shows that support fpr suicide bombing and Osama bin Laden is down throughout the Muslim world.

The only illusion I have had shattered is that Demoprats care about their country or the truth.

Oh wait, I already knew that.

45

"Rob Ryan It managed to take root in the blood-soaked soil of European culture.

Yes, it did. But only because Christianity laid the groundwork and made it possible. Christianity gives us the concept of all men being created equal -- an ideal that is lacking in both Muslim and Arab culture."

Well, Joe, freedom also managed to take root in the blood-soaked Japanese culture. I think capitalism had more appeal to the Japanese than Christianity did, though. But let's assume you are right: If we convert all the Muslims this moment, they are bound to have an Enlightenment in 10-15 short centuries and embrace freedom as a way of life.

Maybe we should let them decide this for themselves, since they obstinately chafe at an imposed solution.

46

Joe wrote:

Unfortunately, I think that question is already moot. The object in war is to impose your will on your enemy. You "win" the war if you can impose your will on the enemy and destroy his will to fight. The jihadists in Iraq have accomplished that goal. Currently, we are simply in the process of negotiating the timing of our surrender. True, we may still be able to achieve some of our objectives. But the war was lost when Congress started debating when not if we would withdraw our troops before we had imposed our will on the enemy.

I remembered as soon as I posted my question that you had already given up the war as lost a few months ago. While I admit things look bad, I don't see that the enemy has imposed its will on us, as long as there are still soldiers there, fighting back and killing them. These guys are worse than the Nazis and it's going to be tougher to fight them.

47

When I used the phrase "interwoven intrigue", I was referring to the international relationships among our enemies; ie. Venezuela, Iran, N. Korea, China, Russia, Syria, etc. The global crisis' that our nation faces is most certainly deeper than we can even imagine. How would you like to the the President, knowing all that he knows, and through whatever means available, ward off or deal with those who want to destroy us; meaning you, your family, our civilization?

This isn't our grandfather's world.

48

Baggi You've raised the bar of victory so high that it is impossible to leap
over.

I think you've missed my point, which means that I didn't communicate it clearly. I believe that what the Prussian General Clauswitz considered the social trinity (the people, the government, and the military) are all needed to win a war. Right now we have an unbeatable military but both the Congress and the American people have all but given up.

If we set our will toward victory, then no one could beat us. But we are a weak, soft people who have ADD when it comes to foreign policy. We are losing/have lost the war because we have decided that we just don’t care enough to win it.

I on the other hand believe we will have won in Iraq if we are able to leave there with them having their current democracy in place and all the while they are able to protect themselves from our enemies. Still a pretty difficult task to accomplish.

While I wouldn’t consider that a "win", that would indeed be a great accomplishment. Unfortunately, our Congress has given up on that as an option. The jihadist no that all they have to do is wait less than a year and we'll leave…no matter if the Iraqis can defend themselves or not.

But it's going to be odd five years from now if Iraq is a stable Democracy, we're no longer there (except perhaps a base like we had in Saudi Arabia) and their culture and economy is flourishing. How you will have to tie yourself in knots explaining how we lost.

If we leave in the next year--which is all but inevitable--Iraq won't be stable in five years. I don’t know of a single military leader who thinks otherwise. The problem is that neither our representatives nor the American people seem to care. I love America but I have no illusion about our people. We'll soon abandon Iraq just as we did Vietnam…and the blood of that people will once again be on our hands.

It seems like no one
who responded to you recognized that you had to throw in the "liberal" democracies part in order to make that statement appear true.

Just so we're on the same sheet of music, let me define liberal democracy: a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities

Of course these countries aren't going to go from dictatorship to "liberal" democracy in a decade or two. But wouldn't that be too much to ask of any country, Arab or no? Especially if these countries are only just now getting their
first taste of Democracy?

No, it's not too much to ask. I'd rather have a benign dictatorship in Iraq than an "illiberal democracy." Palestine is ostensibly a "democracy" and it is one of the most dangerous countries on earth.

I'm satisfied with Iraq's current Democracy, even though it may not be classified as "liberal".

Again, refer to the definition of liberal democracy and see if you still feel the same.

So you seem to build on this impossible state of being for Arab countries and say we've lost. And yet I see it as a huge victory for the Bush Administration and the United States if we are able to leave Iraq a Democracy, even if a little unstable, rather than a stable dictatorship.

I would really recommend that you take a closer look at the current situation. No one thinks that if we leave now that Iraq will remain a "stable democracy." Everyone knows that it will become either an Iranian puppet state or a return to one party state in which the Sunnis wipe out the Shia. But as the NYT and Sen. Obama say, "Who cares what happens once we leave…let's just leave already."

Not your ideology or your convictions, but your physical health. It sometimes can have an effect on our cognitive processes.

I appreciate your concern but I think you should take a closer look at what is actually going on in the world. You seem to have a very naïve idea about us staying in Iraq long enough to make it a stable country. Even most ill-informed people realize that Bush was given until September(!) to show that the country is stable. It ain't gonna happen so we'll start pulling our troops out in January.

Shawn America is winning in Iraq

It won't matter. We've been winning the military victory for the past four years and yet…Americans don't seem to care. For example, a poll taken this week asked:

From what you have seen or heard about the situation in Iraq, what should the United States do now? Should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq?"

36% said to remove all and 30% said to decrease. Only 15% said we should keep the number the same and a measly 12% said we should increase.

We simply don’t have the will to do what it takes to win. (I get more and more ticked off the longer I think about this.)

JD While I admit things look bad, I don't see that the enemy has imposed its will on us, as long as there are still soldiers there, fighting back and killing them.

Perhaps it's because I'm stuck in DC and can't avoid hearing the defeatist rhetoric, but I assumed that everyone else was also aware that the Congress--both Democrats and many Republicans--have set their minds to withdrawing troops by the first of next year. We can't win if our soldiers can't stay in the fight. I've always said that the only way we can lose is to surrender. Well, the Congress is surrendering so the loss is all but inevitable.

49

Joe,

Let me get this straight and try to cut to the chase. From your post, I surmise that you would apportion blame regarding our fiasco in Iraq as such.

American people=100%
Bush Administration=0%

With all due respect, Joe, you've drunk the kool-aid. Would you admit there's a point where we are no longer embracing defeat, but rather reality? 2 more years? 10? 100? Shall we make Iraq the 51st state?

50

Joe, I disagree. Polls may well reflect public weakness, but I dont think that matters, so long as Republicans win the next election. If we can hold on for another 3 to 4 years max we will win.

51

Joe,

I've thought about it more, and I'm now realizing the genius of your position.

It's always baffled me that conservatives profess to believe the following two propositions *simultaneously*:

1.) Our government should be smaller. It cannot do the most basic tasks well, such as educate our children, provide low-cost quality health care, or deliver our mail. In the end, our government just cannot change hearts and minds and therefore should be limited and humble.

2.) The United States government was entirely justified and presumably capable in preemptively invading a Middle Eastern nation, toppling its dictator, occupying its land, and setting up a new, top-down, democratic government. This task was precisely the type of thing our government should do.

The solution, now that reality has set in thus creating unspeakable cognitive dissonance, is that our failure in Iraq isn't the government's fault, it's entirely the fault of the American people.

Genius. Wrong and tragically inconsistent, but genius.

52

Rob
Yes, it did. But only because Christianity laid the groundwork and made it possible. Christianity gives us the concept of all men being created equal -- an ideal that is lacking in both Muslim and Arab culture."

First, equality of men is probably more ingrained in Islam than either Judism or Christianity. Second, did Christianity lay the groundwork for all those bloodbaths in Europe or does it just get credit for the good things?

Maybe we should let them decide this for themselves, since they obstinately chafe at an imposed solution.

Indeed, we should.

Jo Anne

How would you like to the the President, knowing all that he knows, and through whatever means available, ward off or deal with those who want to destroy us; meaning you, your family, our civilization?

This isn't our grandfather's world.

Indeed it isn't our grandfather's world. Our grandfather's world had much more real dangers and the stakes were higher then. Sorry Venezuela may be kind of annoying sometimes but the worse thing Hugo Chavez has done to us is give some poor families here free oil in the winter. Adolf Hitler he isn't.

Joe:
It won't matter. We've been winning the military victory for the past four years and yet…Americans don't seem to care.

How exactly have we been winning in Iraq for the past four years? I'd like to know what you're view of losing would look like? Let's keep in mind Bush's own intelligence estimate has stated that Al Qaeda is stronger today and poses a bigger threat to the mainland US today than it did after 9/11. What exactly have we been winning?

53

First, equality of men is probably more ingrained in Islam than either Judism or Christianity.

Talk about drinking the Kool-Air, what's next? Islam is a religion of peace? If "equality of men" was more ingrained in Islam, wouldn't you expect to see more "equality of men" in Muslim countries? I suspect you haven't spent too much time in Muslim countries, but even in moderate countries like Malaysia there is not much equality between Muslims and non-Muslims.

Second, did Christianity lay the groundwork for all those bloodbaths in Europe or does it just get credit for the good things?

Europe was largely pagan until well into the 2nd millennium so it would be hard to credit Christianity. It would be more accurate to blame the tribal-pagan culture of pre-Christian Europe.

54

Talk about drinking the Kool-Air, what's next? Islam is a religion of peace? If "equality of men" was more ingrained in Islam, wouldn't you expect to see more "equality of men" in Muslim countries?

It would hardly be the first time humans neglected to follow the theology of their stated religion. Now speaking of those European bloodbaths:

Europe was largely pagan until well into the 2nd millennium so it would be hard to credit Christianity. It would be more accurate to blame the tribal-pagan culture of pre-Christian Europe.

OK, so like what about 200-1945?

55

Quoth Shawn:
Polls may well reflect public weakness, but I dont think that matters, so long as Republicans win the next election. If we can hold on for another 3 to 4 years max we will win.
(bolded for emphasis)

You do realize that a number of Republicans are starting to join the Surrender Now chorus, right? Sure, it's mainly the RINOs at this point, but it will get worse before too much longer unless something dramatic happens. Anyway, even if it's just the RINOs, that's bad enough, because Republicans don't have enough political strength right now to split to coalition.

We would need every Republican to unite for victory ... and that's not gonna happen. Even that might not be enough, thanks to the Democratic majorities in Congress.

With all of that said, I'd like to return to the part of your quote which I bolded for emphasis:
... so long as Republicans win the next election....

At this point, I truly believe that the 2008 election belongs to the Democrats. Unless something truly massive happens to shift the electorate between now and then, they're still going to want to punish the GOP for Iraq. It's up to the Dems to lose the election if they can.

And they might lose it yet, which remains my hope. Hillary is one of the most-hated women in America, and she's their front-runner. Obama could probably win the election, but Hillary will destroy him during the primary season unless he decides to settle for the VP slot on her ticket. The other Dems in the field right now won't stand a chance in the primaries.

My sincere hope is that Hillary destroys Obama, then somehow manages to lose. It could happen. I'm not sure it's likely ... but it could happen.

56

Hillary is one of the most-hated women in America, ...

Hate, brought to you by the Republican Party.

What more could they possibly have to offer?

57

Boonton
It would hardly be the first time humans neglected to follow the theology of their stated religion.

Wait a second there Boonton. Previously you have argued that religious texts so flexible that they can be redefined into any meaning the believers want. If Islam says 'X', it can be made to say 'Y' because there really is not 'X' there. Language, in your terms, has no inherent meaning but only what we ascribe to it. Therefore, your statement above cancels out what you said before. In your previous view, Islam has no theology beyond what it's believers say it has. Now you are saying it has an inherent theology that it's believers do or do not follow. You can't have it both ways.

Now just to answer your statement, Islam is very clear in its delineation between the believer and non-believer. Would you like to explain where Islam points to the equality of men?

58

There is a point that needs emphasis here. The primary reason why the American people are not behind the Bush admin. the way they were behind the Roosevelt admin. in WWII is that they do not think the war must be won to secure their safety. It WWII, it was quite clear that Germany, Japan and their allies had to be defeated. But in the case of Iraq, it is not clear. The American people simply don't believe that there's a threat here, or that retreat from Iraq will put them in danger. If they did believe this, Iraq would be won. Folks today - just like the folks of the Great Generation - would do most anything to protect themselves and the ones they love where they believe that there's a genuine threat.

Joe seems to assume that Americans believe there's a threat and want to withdraw anyway. If that were true, we would be weak and cowardly. But we just don't believe it. We're not cowardly. We're incredulous.

59

"We simply don’t have the will to do what it takes to win. (I get more and more ticked off the longer I think about this.)"

Your anger is misplaced. Our chief executive either a) underestimated the difficulties this invasion would entail, or b) overestimated the willingness of the American people to pursue the project in the face of dismal prospects for success. Either way, it is his error that has brought us to this point. It is unconscionable to begin an action that the American people will not see through to its end (if, indeed, an end is even possible). The only wars we lose are the ones we shouldn't wage in the first place. Failures like Vietnam and Iraq diminish American standing abroad and encourage our enemies, but these failures are not the fault of the American public. They are the fault of politicians who fail the statesmanship test.

60

It would hardly be the first time humans neglected to follow the theology of their stated religion.

So in traditionally Muslim countries "equality of men" is deeply ingrained, but rarely followed, while in traditionally Christian countries is not well ingrained, but it is well followed. OK then; so what it is the benefit of "equality of men" being deeply ingrained?

OK, so like what about 200-1945?

Europe was largely tribal-pagan into the 2nd millennium A.D.. In other words, past 1000 AD, not 100 AD. Looking at the wars of the 19th and 20th centuries, can you make the case for any of them being religious wars?

61

For example, a poll taken this week asked:

Therein lies the answer or fault to the current situation... too many opinion polls (which btw ask questions intended to elicit the properly predictive and desired responses) and not enough commitment to decisions previously made. We've got nearly a full Congress of flip-floppers who're pegged to results from opinion polls.

What a way to govern! The fickle finger of fate says the blame goes to the results of the opinion polls rather than attaching to the Congress critter(s) that flip-flopped merrily along with the polls.

62

Wait a second there Boonton. Previously you have argued that religious texts so flexible that they can be redefined into any meaning the believers want. If Islam says 'X', it can be made to say 'Y' because there really is not 'X' there. Language, in your terms, has no inherent meaning but only what we ascribe to it.

No I wouldn't quite say that. I would say that text is by nature indefinite so yes it has quite a bit of flexibility....probably a lot more than one would expect. In the Catholic tradition, this is why tradition plays as important a role as the actual text itself. Even in law we recognize tradition in the form of common law and other ideas that shape how we read text. I wouldn't say that text is so plastic, though, that it can mean anything at all.

But coupled with this we have the fact that humans have an amazing power of denial. The debate with creationists demonstrates this very well here. But I'm sure in the Islamic tradition the same thing holds. For example, suicide is clearly and explicitly prohibited in the Koran. Martyrdom happens when you're killed defending the faith but you can't kill yourself (even if you take enemies with you). Yet Muslims who would normally be quite fundamentalist and claim to take the strictest reading of the Koran possible will accept this because they want it to be true.

Now just to answer your statement, Islam is very clear in its delineation between the believer and non-believer. Would you like to explain where Islam points to the equality of men?

The delineation is one of choice. Any man who is an unbeliever can choose to become a believer and he is as equal as any other person regardless of his race, nationality etc. In this sense Islam's little different than Christianity. Unbelievers go to hell but everyone is equal in that they may choose to save themsleves by becomming a believer.

Islam is also very good at emphasizing equality within a society, especially between rich and poor. See, for example, the Hajj where even Kings are expected to shed their clothes and sit with peasents in the same white robes. (And the white robes are meant to drill this equality into the head of the believers). I don't think you'll find a ritual emphasizing equality like that in Christianity.

Now I'm not saying Islam advocates a society of equality of results where no one is ever richer or poorer than anyone else or that it doesn't recognize that a society will have rulers in it but it does emphasize that all people are equal before God. I think you'd be hard pressed to find an idea like the 'Devine Right of Kings' or that earthly prosperity indicates devine favor in Islam. Both ideas that found a comfortable home in Christianity.

Franklin
I'm with you on this:
The primary reason why the American people are not behind the Bush admin. the way they were behind the Roosevelt admin. in WWII is that they do not think the war must be won to secure their safety.

But it's not about thinking or believing it's about reality. Iraq is NOT about securing our safety. By the administration's own admission we are less safe today because of it.

You loose me with:
The American people simply don't believe that there's a threat here, or that retreat from Iraq will put them in danger. If they did believe this, Iraq would be won.

Wishful thinking is not going to turn Iraq into a democracy. Only Iraq itself can do that. This is the same type of arrogance that got us into this mess. Beliefs must always yield to reality or else they become delusions. If Baghdad is to become a peaceful town it must be because of the actions of the peopel in Baghdad...not 'happy thoughts' from people in San Franscisco or NYC.

ucfengr

So in traditionally Muslim countries "equality of men" is deeply ingrained, but rarely followed, while in traditionally Christian countries is not well ingrained, but it is well followed. OK then; so what it is the benefit of "equality of men" being deeply ingrained?

It's probably as followed as it is anywhere else. The primary difference is how society is set up and what its norms allow. In developed countries we have plenty of non-violent ways to show our fellow man contempt and disrespect that are considered socially acceptable. In other countries the norms are different. I can't speak to having travelled aborad much but at least in some personal experiences with immigrants from traditional cutlures I get the sense that they probably often do a better job treating other individuals with respect and hospitality than most native born people.

I think you're getting too caught up in politics. Yes the gov't of the US is a lot nicer than, say, the gov't of Egypt or Turkey. That's only a tiny, tiny part of life, though.

Europe was largely tribal-pagan into the 2nd millennium A.D.. In other words, past 1000 AD, not 100 AD. Looking at the wars of the 19th and 20th centuries, can you make the case for any of them being religious wars?

Ok, so when did Europe become Christian in your book? 1945-1970? The World Wars of the 1900's were continuations of the nationalistic wars of the 1800's which were continuations of the religious wars from before and those religious wars were of Christian against Christian....not Christian.v.Pagan. IMO they got really bloody in the 1900's because the industrial revolution expodentially increased the firepower that can be applied in war.

63

Franklin Mason commented:
But in the case of Iraq, it is not clear. The American people simply don't believe that there's a threat here, or that retreat from Iraq will put them in danger. If they did believe this, Iraq would be won.

Yeah, I think there's something to your argument. The threat from Iraq was nowhere near as straightforward as the threat the Axis posed in WWII. More importantly, our President and his administration have done an abysmal job at explaining the threat to the American people.

Our tendency toward isolationism comes from a fuzzy-headed American belief that nothing can hurt us. In this respect, we're like a nation full of teenagers. We think we're immortal, so we don't seriously consider the threats to our safety ... especially the threats that are less-direct or more complicated than the Nazi war machine was.

Folks today - just like the folks of the Great Generation - would do most anything to protect themselves and the ones they love where they believe that there's a genuine threat.

Aye, there's the rub. The main problem of the Global War on Terror -- and one of Dubya's arguments for invading Iraq -- is that we cannot wait for threats to become obvious. By the time the threat is obvious, the badguys have already hit us. We can wait for another 9/11 before we defend ourselves again, but wouldn't it be better to prevent the attack if possible?

Sadly, I don't think the American people are still inclined to think that way after Iraq. (If we ever were....) We'll have to see another smoking hole in one of our major cities before we'll be willing to defend ourselves.

64

I would say that the key to Joe's thinking on the subject of Iraq, and really, the core of his personality, is that he's a cowardly, worthless, loser. Look at his post, and his comments above. He casts the issue in terms of "winning," "losing," and "will". He doesn't ask the question, what is the best outcome for the American people, and how do we achieve that outcome? He doesn't credit the American people with asking and answering that question. No, he sits in judgment on the American people, accusing them of lacking a "will to win". That is, they don't have the same strong "will to win" that he has.

Now, what does Joe's "will t