New at Reason

May 22, 2007

Jonathan Rauch applies for a passport to enter President Bush's alternate universe.

Comments

|5.22.07 @ 5:22PM|#

Bush, Clinton, Carter, what do those three have in common besides making people sick at the sight and/or mention of them? They are all from the south.
Suggestion: No more southern presidents.
Whaddya think gang?

|5.22.07 @ 5:28PM|#

Sorry Jonathan but there can be no orderly withdrawal. The inevitable, tourists caught in a hurricane, fall of Baghdad will make Saigon look like a rainy weekend. It's just a matter of when.

|5.22.07 @ 5:34PM|#

Picking the wrong people from the South may be the problem. Just like picking the wrong Californian was in the 60s.

And I somehow can't see Bush as a Southerner.

|5.22.07 @ 5:38PM|#

Yes, by all means let's go with a New Yorker, like FDR (or Giulani or Hillary), or a New Jerseyite/pretend-Southerner like Woody Wilson. Don't waste our time with Southerners like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson; they're just hicks.

|5.22.07 @ 5:52PM|#

The real problem is that they're all politicians.

|5.22.07 @ 6:07PM|#

That's the problem, all right.

|5.22.07 @ 6:17PM|#

Ohio produced Presidents Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Benjamin Harrison, McKinley, Taft, and Harding. From 1868 until 1932, the only Republicans elected President either came from Ohio or were Vice-Presidents who had succeeded to the Presidency on the death of a Ohioan then got elected in their own right (TR and Coolidge).

The only other nominees from the Republican Party from this period were James G. Blaine and Charles Evans Hughes, both of whom lost close elections. If Hughes had carried Ohio he would have been president during World War I. (Blaine did carry Ohio, but lost the election anyway.)

The other thing that stands out from this era is the mediocrity of most of these presidents from Ohio.

|5.22.07 @ 6:19PM|#

For whatever reason, I think that the ultimate end game for this will be a permanent US military base in Iraq.

I can't really back up that assertion with anything substantive, however.

|5.22.07 @ 6:23PM|#

Benjamin Harrison, I should mention, moved to Indiana in the 1850s, and that's where he made his name in politics. On the other hand, his grandfather came from Virginia and most of his political life was in Ohio.

|5.22.07 @ 6:39PM|#

Hmm. I could handle mediocrity. Mediocre may mean no stellar victories, but it also means no epic clusterfucks, and I'm a bit tired of those right now.

|5.22.07 @ 7:37PM|#

Wow, I guess I'm the only one around that thinks this is the best Jonathan Rauch reason article yet. And I've been pretty hard on the guy in the past. Well-written, and completely accurate.

|5.22.07 @ 7:57PM|#

If we're going by state, Massachusetts has produced John Adams, John Quincy Adams, and Calvin Coolidge (born in Vermont). Unfortunately, it has also produced JFK, George H.W. Bush, Dukakis, and John Kerry (not all presidents, but worth mentioning).

I'm from MN, but Coolidge is my all-time favorite president. That said, I think we can avoid looking to MA (or MN for that matter) for future presidents if we are just going on state track record.

|5.22.07 @ 8:54PM|#

Well, if you're looking for a no-nonsense, take charge kind of guy, I understand Vladimir Putin will be free by November 2008. ;P

Guy Montag|5.22.07 @ 9:02PM|#

No reason announcement about Drug Night on The History Channel?

ktc2|5.22.07 @ 9:14PM|#

Where's the post about the Falwell funeral bomber?

I love stories about religious nuts killing each other off. I say let them go at it!

ktc2|5.22.07 @ 9:17PM|#

On a tengentially related note, isn't starting a law school based on teaching lawyers/judges that separation of church and state is a myth . . .

Don't know how to phrase it . . .

How can something like that get certification from any reality based accreditation organization?

|5.22.07 @ 9:48PM|#

How can something like that get certification from any reality based accreditation organization?

Appoved by the Board of Governors, Tehran University.

Bhh|5.22.07 @ 9:56PM|#

The ABA will accredit any fly-by-nite Hollywood Upstairs Pat Robertson Law Skool.

I think the plan is to play out the clock and dump Iraq on the next guy, probably not a republican president.

|5.22.07 @ 10:52PM|#

I could go with Rauch on the "playing the best card you have" analogy, except for the fact that this write-up acts as though the last four years didn't occur.

Let's see:
War we didn't need,
pursuing it on the cheap,
hosing up the takeover (disbanding army/DeBaathification),
Abu Gharib,
significant civilian collateral damage - wasted infrastructure,
new Al Qaeda training center,
now loathed in country and region,
raising a Shia gov't that you expect to embrace their former repressors, and eschew Iran,
Yada yada yada

Every act Bush and the Vulcans have undertaken has been a clusterf&*k from day one; every act they take to propagate it is by definition delusional.

Warren had it exactly correct, all we are doing now is fixing the date when the real ethnic cleansing begins.

Mel Gibson|5.22.07 @ 11:16PM|#

Hmm, Rauch. Isn\'t that a Jewish name?

|5.23.07 @ 12:10AM|#

Rauch still seems to think succeeding in Iraq is just a matter of finding all the pony giblets that are there and stitching them together.

Fact is, even if everything goes our way, and we find all the pony parts, all we'll end up with is a gory lump of pony meat.

|5.23.07 @ 12:49AM|#

If I could pick a nit in an otherwise decent article:

One way to do that -- not the only way, but a good place to start the discussion -- would be to go to the United Nations now to arrange help with the civilian tasks that American combat forces, successful or not, will leave behind as they pull back...

No matter how corrupt the U.S. government gets, it still can't hold a candle to the UN. From the BBC:

Pakistani UN peacekeeping troops have traded in gold and sold weapons to Congolese militia groups they were meant to disarm

Egon|5.23.07 @ 1:00AM|#

Subtitle: Personality or personal?

Mel, "rauch" is a form of German malt or a style of furniture. "Rauchen" is German for "to smoke."

|5.23.07 @ 2:02AM|#

How about this analogy: We're in deep-south Alabama, and the cops break into your house to get rid of your abusive, child-molesting father. After they get rid of him (whether they should have is moot at this point), a fight breaks out between your older brothers between who's in charge, and who gets to molest you next. Should the cops leave, because they shouldn't have broken into your house in the first place?

Keep in mind -- it doesn't matter why they ended up there in the first place -- they are there, like it or not.

|5.23.07 @ 3:26AM|#

Seconded. What we need now is for those folks who were most credibly against the war to come to the fore and say:

"WELL, WE'VE MADE OUR BED, AND NOW WE'VE GOT TO LIE IN IT."

Because that is the truth. I can't see how it could be otherwise. If it was unlikely that the aftermath of the war would be a functioning state, then it's even more unlikely that the aftermath of the withdrawl will be a functioning state. Instead, it seems likely it will be massacres of Sunnis, followed by vicious reprisals by Al-Qaida, followed by more of the same, followed by Jebus only knows what.

There was a time when I fantasized that maybe the administration had the right idea by not doing too much to stabilize the post-war environment. That by imposing just enough order and allowing just enough chaos, Iraqi-domestic order would arise. It sure didn't happen, and I doubt now that the administration ever thought of it that way.

At this point, there's way too much chaos. Remove what little order is imposed by US troops and the whole system will just slide further into chaos.

The aftermath of a pullout will be a humanitarian disaster. The blame will fall squarely on the US. Further loss of international prestige and power, followed by...again, Jebus knows what, but whatever it is, it will have gun-barrels pointed at the US, Israel, Egypt, and Jordan, with the freedom to act.

|5.23.07 @ 9:04AM|#

Joe Mama,
OK I'll play. While the cops are there, your brothers take turns taking pot shots at them. While the cops are busy chasing one brother, the other pulls you into the closet.

The police can only decide how many officers they're willing to vainly sacrifice. Nothing they do will be of any help to your dysfunctional family as they are determined to kill and molest each other until the end of time.

thoreau|5.23.07 @ 9:07AM|#

The best thing the cops can do in that case would be to let the abused child leave the home, rather than permanently occupy the home.

In other words, any non-violent Iraqi who wants out should be given a green card. Arab immigrants have a reputation for being hard-working, entrepreneurial, and often academically successful. It would be a win for us and it would be the only just thing we can do for them, having replaced their bloody (and formerly US-backed) tyrant with bloody chaos.

tom_sizemore|5.23.07 @ 9:09AM|#

Joe Mama,

About your analogy,

...the cops break into your house to get rid of your abusive, child-molesting father ...a fight breaks out between your older brothers [about] who gets to molest you next. Should the cops leave, because they shouldn't have broken into your house in the first place?

Yes! Because they aren't cops! The U.S. didn't have a U.N. mandate to attack Iraq, and it didn't deserve one, since Iraq was not a threat.

The proper analogy would be: some random dude decides to break into a house and murder a child molester. Then the brothers want to molest the victims further; should he continue killing people to protect the molestee? Obviously not! He has absolutely no authority to do that, and he is also guilty of murder.

The proper analogy for cops in this example is the international justice system, such that it exists. Those are the ones that should have been allowed to deal with Saddam Hussein, and, if international law were to mean anything, would also try George Bush for International Aggression.

|5.23.07 @ 9:10AM|#

Interesting theory t. But I wonder, how would you identify the "non-violent" Iraqis eligible for a green card?

|5.23.07 @ 9:23AM|#

"I'd have started that (bringing in the UN) six months ago," Pollack says.

Because Lord knows you wouldn't have started it four years ago, when you were having "We proved the UN wrong!" tee shirts printed up, you hack.

|5.23.07 @ 9:29AM|#

People remember the helicopters flying off the embassy roof in 1975. What they don't remember is that the serious pressure to leave began in 1968, and it was determination to fight-not-to-lose that prevented a more orderly, decent end to our involvement there.

I've been writing this for a long time - if we leave now, we can do so on something like our own terms. If we keep looking for the pony, it's going to end like 1975.

It's the difference between walking out of the casino down, and walking out broke. You just don't know how to play cards very well, Tex. Walk away while you can still make the mortgage.

|5.23.07 @ 9:29AM|#

Larry E:

I vaguely recall lesser functionaries from the Clinton administration saying "you broke it, you bought it" shortly after the 2003 invasion. I can't find quotes; searching just finds modern bloggers who use the phrase.

|5.23.07 @ 9:44AM|#

Rauch continues to make the argument that the U.S. presence is contributing to security and political stability, and the only question is whether it can do so to the necessary degree.

But what if, as all 16 of our intelligence agencies and the Iraqi people keep telling us, our presence is contributing to the political instability that produces the sectarian violence?

Our presence is what the Sunni/Iraqi Nationalist insurgency is targetted at. Our support for the Shiite-dominated government that the Sunnis don't consider legitimate is part of what turned the anti-American insurgency into an anti-Iraqi-government insurgency. The growth of that insurgency is what motivated and encouraged foreign jihadists to come into Iraq, and mount a campaign of atrocities against Shiites, sparking the civil war. Our occupation is the reason that the highly nationalist Sunnis joined with those foreign jihadists, and why their communities are serving as the "water" in which the "fish" swim.

In principle, I'm a Pottery Barn guy. That's why I still support having troops in Kosovo and Bosnia. But in those places, American troops are actually contributing towards peace and security.

We need to use the announcement of our withdrawal, the renunciation of our bases and oil claims, and the reduction of our military operations in hostile areas as tools to push forward a peace/political process among the Iraqi factions and Iraq's neighbors. There is no military solution, only a political solution, and the continuation and escalation of our military involvement does not advance that political solution, but hinders it.

ed|5.23.07 @ 10:12AM|#

Not to quibble, but shouldn't the sub-header read: "Inside the president's own personal reality?

OK, I quibbled. At least I'm not shooting up a university.

Yet.

|5.23.07 @ 10:17AM|#

In the Alternate Reality, there is a libertarian magazine called "Kneejerk Hysteria."

People keep writing into the comment threads on its blog with the statement, "For a magazine called Kneejerk Hysteria, your position certainly is thoughtful and well-reasoned."

|5.23.07 @ 10:38AM|#

"For a magazine called Kneejerk Hysteria, your position certainly is thoughtful and well-reasoned."

Everybody stop drinking!

thoreau|5.23.07 @ 11:03AM|#

In the Alternate Reality, there is a libertarian magazine called "Kneejerk Hysteria."

Michelle Malkin probably writes for it.

|5.23.07 @ 11:09AM|#

"Our presence is what the Sunni/Iraqi Nationalist insurgency is targetted at." - joe

Yeah, because our presence somehow started the different factions hating one another. Granted, our removal of Saddam pulled the oppresive lid he kept on those factions, but there is no way that U.S. presence is the real reason these factions hate each other.

"Our support for the Shiite-dominated government that the Sunnis don't consider legitimate is part of what turned the anti-American insurgency into an anti-Iraqi-government insurgency." - joe

See above.

"The growth of that insurgency is what motivated and encouraged foreign jihadists to come into Iraq, and mount a campaign of atrocities against Shiites, sparking the civil war." - joe
Yeah, just like it was U.S. presence that encourage N. Korea to invade S. Korea, N. Vietnam to invade S. Vietnam, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, etc back to before the beginning of time. Why not just go ahead and blame U.S. presence for Cain bashing Abel with a rock? I mean, it's the same general geographic area, right?

"Our occupation is the reason that the highly nationalist Sunnis joined with those foreign jihadists, and why their communities are serving as the 'water' in which the 'fish' swim." - joe
Ok, some jihadists and some Sunnis have joined forces because they both want the U.S. out and you think that the best strategy is to let them have what they want? That jihadists won't start training camps in the Iraqi hinterlands and that the Sunnis and Shiites won't do their best to wipe each other out (with the Kurds as a side dish)?

"In principle, I'm a Pottery Barn guy. That's why I still support having troops in Kosovo and Bosnia. But in those places, American troops are actually contributing towards peace and security." - joe
There's Muslim jihadists in those locations, too, joe. There are also factions trying to kill each other that are barely held in check due to ongoing U.S./UN peacekeeping presence. What's the difference, again?

"We need to use the announcement of our withdrawal, the renunciation of our bases and oil claims, and the reduction of our military operations in hostile areas as tools to push forward a peace/political process among the Iraqi factions and Iraq's neighbors." - joe
Yep, that's likely to fix it. Give up, go home, toss in the towel on anything even remotely resembling U.S. national security interests... That solution worked really well for us after World War I, didn't it? Well, right up until Pearl Harbor, anyway. The bottom line here is that U.S. national security has historically been most often threatened by authoritarian actors (state or non-state) who want to impose their will on other states or on the U.S.

"There is no military solution, only a political solution, and the continuation and escalation of our military involvement does not advance that political solution, but hinders it." -joe
Actually, I think history has shown that the solution requires a military, political and economic solution. To paraphrase John Gaddis... Post-WW1 isolationism collapsed due to the resurgence of authoritarianism, as Americans began to suspect that internal state behavior determined external behavior and so began opposing authoritarianism everywhere. Regimes might be unsavory but benign because they posed no threat to U.S. interests or even promoted them (for example, the USSR as one of the Big Three Allies in WW2). Regimes like Nazi Germany and Japan were another matter - Pearl Harbor made it clear that malignant authoritarianism can harm the U.S. and was the defining event for American involvement in world affairs - the most plausible potential justification for the U.S. to become and remain a global power in the eyes of its citizens was its endangered national security. When isolationism was shown to leave the nation open to military attack it died out. The preferred solution became to maintain preponderant power for the U.S. (substantial peace-time military establishment and a string of bases around the world from which to resist aggression) coupled with a revived international community to remove the fundamental causes of war (the United Nations) and economic institutions (World Bank, International Monetary Fund) to prevent another global depression and ensure prosperity.

That George Keenan was a smart guy - his strategy took down the USSR in a matter of decades. Too bad the guys who sound like him keep getting shouted down by guys like joe, who have apparently read way too much Noam Chomsky.

|5.23.07 @ 11:31AM|#

George Kennan was still a smart guy in 2002, as demonstrated by the fact that he was against this stupid adventure from the beginning.

"Anyone who has ever studied the history of American diplomacy, especially military diplomacy, knows that you might start in a war with certain things on your mind as a purpose of what you are doing, but in the end, you found yourself fighting for entirely different things that you had never thought of before," he said. "In other words, war has a momentum of its own and it carries you away from all thoughtful intentions when you get into it. Today, if we went into Iraq, like the president would like us to do, you know where you begin. You never know where you are going to end."

Not bad for a 98-year-old.

|5.23.07 @ 12:14PM|#

"Pearl Harbor made it clear that malignant authoritarianism can harm the U.S. and was the defining event for American involvement in world affairs - the most plausible potential justification for the U.S. to become and remain a global power in the eyes of its citizens was its endangered national security. When isolationism was shown to leave the nation open to military attack it died out. The preferred solution became to maintain preponderant power for the U.S."

Pearl Harbor happened not because of our neutrality or isolationism as you call it, rob, but because of FDR's meddling with Japan's designs on China. It was his back door to war. Japan would never have attacked us if we had remained neutral. They had no interest in attacking the US. They thought that after winning a few battles against America, the American public would lose it's will to fight and leave them alone.

|5.23.07 @ 12:27PM|#

there is nothing delusional about playing the best card you have

There is if you play it during a game of checkers.

|5.23.07 @ 12:46PM|#

"Our presence is what the Sunni/Iraqi Nationalist insurgency is targetted at." - joe

Yeah, because our presence somehow started the different factions hating one another. - rob

Those statements have nothing to do with each other. The Sunni insurgency was targetted at our military and the government, for two to three years, before the civil war broke out.

Once upon a time, Sadrists carried out attacks on American convoys, in support of the Sunni insurgents fighting the Marines in Falluja.

Nice straw man, though - claiming that I somehow attributed the Sunni/Shiite schism to the Iraq War.

"Yeah, just like it was U.S. presence that encourage N. Korea to invade S. Korea, N. Vietnam to invade S. Vietnam, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, etc back to before the beginning of time."

What the fuck are you babbling about? Is the irrefutable observation that the foreign jihadists came to Iraq to fight us so threatening that you need to hide behind this idiotic rhetoric?

"Ok, some jihadists and some Sunnis have joined forces because they both want the U.S. out and you think that the best strategy is to let them have what they want?" Yes, the political effect of splitting the Iraqi Sunnis away from the al Qaedists is the top priority now. If we can accomplish that, "al Qaeda in Iraq" is going to end up in a ditch within about two weeks.

"That jihadists won't start training camps in the Iraqi hinterlands" As if they aren't now? Once again, as any counter-insurgency book will tell you, you make it impossible for a small terrorist group to operate by turning the population against them.

"and that the Sunnis and Shiites won't do their best to wipe each other out" As if they aren't now? American troops can't stop Sunnis and Shiites from trying to wipe each other out, as everyone except you dead-enders has figured out already. Only a political deal can do that.

"(with the Kurds as a side dish)?" I'm resigned to that fact that we're going to have to leave troops in Kurdistan. West Berlin, Taiwan, and Israel, all rolled into one. I certainly hope we stage a responsible redeployment soon, while this is still possible, rather than later, when it will not be.

"There's Muslim jihadists in those locations, too, joe. There are also factions trying to kill each other that are barely held in check due to ongoing U.S./UN peacekeeping presence. What's the difference, again?"

3400 dead Americans, 150,000+ dead locals, an ongoing and increasingly lethal guerilla war against our troops, continuing sectarian slaughter claiming dozens or hundreds of civilians lives every single day, and functional governmental institutions. But yeah, other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

"Yep, that's likely to fix it." Ooh, please, Mr. Iraq War Supporter, tell me what's likely to happen in Iraq!

"Give up, go home, toss in the towel on anything even remotely resembling U.S. national security interests..." Achieving a political solution that ends the civil war and turns the Sunnis against al Qaeda is the only way to protect our national security interests.

"The bottom line here is that U.S. national security has historically been most often threatened by authoritarian actors (state or non-state) who want to impose their will on other states or on the U.S."

The bottom line here is that you're still fighting the last war, and cannot reconcile yourself to the existence of al Qaeda and the nature of the threat it poses. Even four years after we couldn't close the deal at Tora Bora because so many resources had been moved to Iraq or were sitting in Kabul, you still think the national armies of states are at the center of the War on Terror. As the next paragraph demonstrates.

George Kennan - what did he write about stateless terrorism and the conditions that allow it to expand again? Oh, right, not a single word.

Noamm Chomsky - what a laugh. Go back to the 60s, rob. Whether we're talking about domestic politics or global security, you're brain seems to be stuck there anyway.

|5.23.07 @ 12:53PM|#

It's May 2007, and the only reason rob can come up with explain why someone might think that military attacks on Iraq are a bad idea is a fealty to anti-American, Chomskyite ideology.

It's May 23, 2007.

You know why we can't allow the people who took us into Iraq to win the White House and take Congress in 2008? Because they'll do it again. Read rob's comments - he hasn't learned a damn thing. He still thinks this was a good idea. He still thinks that the reasoning that led us to invade Iraq is the reasoning we should be using to guide our foreign policy.

|5.23.07 @ 1:10PM|#

All this concern from hawks like rob about the Kurds, while they're still useful as a talking point for his preferred policy.

You just watch - as soon as the hawks get it through their skulls that they're not going to find the pony, they're going to drop the Kurds like they were turd-covered uranium.

Harrumph, we gave them freedom, and they weren't good enough. Let the barbarians destroy each other.

You just watch.

|5.23.07 @ 2:02PM|#

Thanks Keith, that might be a better slogan, actually.

Joe, I can understand wanting to believe that withdrawing American troops will reduce the loss of life in Iraq. It's a perfectly reasonable possibility. I just think that the likelihood is really low.

Do you really believe it?

|5.23.07 @ 3:23PM|#

Larry,

1. It's not the withdrawal that will reduce the loss of life, but the political/peace process.

2. I don't know if it will work of not, but I know that our withdrawal, renunication of our oil and base claims, and active support for a political process are necessary conditions for success.

3. Even if it fails, it ends with us out, and having wasted much less blood and treasure, as opposed to staying the course. If that fails, Arlington gets a lot more full.

VM|5.23.07 @ 4:23PM|#

Larry, Robby, and Joe?

mercy! :)

[ducks]

|5.23.07 @ 5:19PM|#

otio - Kennan "warned of the unforeseen consequences of waging war." That's definitely a sensible position, but not quite what you're portraying it as. I read the article, and while I might not agree with all of it, it's a common-sense appraisal and I can't find much to argue with. As for "Not bad for a 98-year-old" - unless he's got Alzheimer's how could getting older and wiser hurt the guy in this arena?

Rattlesnake Jake - Do you think that 9/11 was caused by U.S. foreign policy or is it like your Pearl harbor theory, a straight-up conspiracy?

"Those statements have nothing to do with each other. The Sunni insurgency was targetted at our military and the government, for two to three years, before the civil war broke out." - joe

With the intent to drive us out so they could focus on the folks they really hate. But you think that getting rid of the only thing stopping a group from killing another group is a good idea.

"Once upon a time, Sadrists carried out attacks on American convoys, in support of the Sunni insurgents fighting the Marines in Falluja. Nice straw man, though - claiming that I somehow attributed the Sunni/Shiite schism to the Iraq War." - joe

Actually, I made that point, I didn't attribute it to you. Very Freudian, joe.

"What the fuck are you babbling about?" - joe
Temper, temper. You're letting your "little man complex" lead you into insulting people because you're safe behind a computer screen again. If you're not careful you'll start letting those homophobic and misogynistic insults slip out again.

"Is the irrefutable observation that the foreign jihadists came to Iraq to fight us so threatening that you need to hide behind this idiotic rhetoric?" - joe
I'm the one who's babbling? You can't tell your position from mine, apparently. I'm the guy who says that the jihadists are there because of us, but I don't confuse that with the idea that we're the reason for age-old hatreds between the people who have been pulled together by the crazy lines the Brits drew up. (See also, Yugoslavia.)

"Yes, the political effect of splitting the Iraqi Sunnis away from the al Qaedists is the top priority now. If we can accomplish that, 'al Qaeda in Iraq' is going to end up in a ditch within about two weeks." - joe
Uh-huh. How well did that work with the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan again?

"As if they aren't now? Once again, as any counter-insurgency book will tell you, you make it impossible for a small terrorist group to operate by turning the population against them." - joe
And your counter-insurgency book tells you that you can turn the population against the insurgency by abandoning that population? You might need to re-read that book a time or two and let it percolate before you start claiming to be knowledgeable about what it takes to mount a successful counter-insurgency campaign.

"As if they aren't now? American troops can't stop Sunnis and Shiites from trying to wipe each other out, as everyone except you dead-enders has figured out already. Only a political deal can do that." - joe
Actually, U.S. presence is probably all that keeps the lid on at all, sadly, in place of Saddam's regime which served a similar purpose. But of course, leaving a power vacuum there will accomplish all of your fondest dreams for Iraq... Sigh... Calling people names still doesn't make you right, joe.

"I'm resigned to that fact that we're going to have to leave troops in Kurdistan. West Berlin, Taiwan, and Israel, all rolled into one. I certainly hope we stage a responsible redeployment soon, while this is still possible, rather than later, when it will not be." - joe
Well, Kennan would approve, at least. But how does that square with your plan to withdraw and renounce our forward bases?

"3400 dead Americans, 150,000+ dead locals, an ongoing and increasingly lethal guerilla war against our troops, continuing sectarian slaughter claiming dozens or hundreds of civilians lives every single day, and functional governmental institutions." - joe
That's the price, joe. It sucks, and its horrible. But it's the price of war, and very rarely is the whole price tag in view when the U.S. buys into it. That's one of the things that military service might have taught you. But no one is asking you to report for duty, so there is that much to be thankful for.

"But yeah, other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" - joe
Oh, joe, that's a knee-slapper! You came up with that all on your own, didn't you? You should quite this internet gig distributing DNC Talking Points for stand-up comedy. No, really. You can't be any wrose at it than Michael Richards.

"Ooh, please, Mr. Iraq War Supporter, tell me what's likely to happen in Iraq!" - joe
Whatever the U.S. decides is what is going to happen in Iraq, joe. That's the funny thing about fighting an insurgency or conducting peacekeeping operations, or any other of the wide variety of MOOTW. The most likely source of the U.S. failing to accomplish its objectives is for it to decide to stop pursuing them. As JFK once noted in "Why England Slept," the will to continue the fight can be a liability for a democracy... Especially if that democracy starts listening to people like you. (God forbid!)

"Achieving a political solution that ends the civil war and turns the Sunnis against al Qaeda is the only way to protect our national security interests." - joe
What would that solution look like, joe? You can't shout "political solution" and expect it to fix things. Removing one leg of the three (economic, diplomatic, military) isn't going to make the kitchen stool that is Iraq MORE stable, but less.

"The bottom line here is that you're still fighting the last war, and cannot reconcile yourself to the existence of al Qaeda and the nature of the threat it poses." - joe
Uh-huh... That's me. You got me. You and your darned references to Ferdinand Foch... But you've got this great idea for a political policy that will stop those pesky terrorists, right? I know, we could call it the "Maginot Line Doctrine."

"Even four years after we couldn't close the deal at Tora Bora because so many resources had been moved to Iraq or were sitting in Kabul, you still think the national armies of states are at the center of the War on Terror. As the next paragraph demonstrates." - joe
What? Because Kennan didn't address it directly? Sun Tzu didn't directly address Molotov cocktails, but it doesn't invalidate his approach! The U.S. has based its international policy (and intentionally or not the Bush admin's approach - even if they don't follow through on the last two all the time) on the three legs of diplomacy, military might, and economic prosperity. That I recognize that a similarly based strategy can work in the current war is foolish because you think it can't be adapted to fight non-state actors? What do you suggest in its place? Oh yeah, the Maginot Line Doctrine, a Chomskyite mea culpa: "use the announcement of our withdrawal, the renunciation of our bases and oil claims, and the reduction of our military operations in hostile areas as tools to push forward a peace/political process among the Iraqi factions and Iraq's neighbors."

"Noamm Chomsky - what a laugh. Go back to the 60s, rob. Whether we're talking about domestic politics or global security, you're brain seems to be stuck there anyway." - joe
You're the guy who sounds like him, maybe you're the guy who should borrow Austin Powers time-travelling shag-wagon...

"It's May 2007, and the only reason rob can come up with explain why someone might think that military attacks on Iraq are a bad idea is a fealty to anti-American, Chomskyite ideology." - joe
You're the guy who sounds like him, joe. If a band dresses and sounds like Led Zeppelin, while covering exclusively Led Zeppelin songs, they're a tribute band. You're the guy who thinks that all the crap coming out of the singer's mouth is due to the band's brilliant song-writing. I'm the guy who points out that it was originally written decades ago.

"You know why we can't allow the people who took us into Iraq to win the White House and take Congress in 2008? Because they'll do it again." - joe
Yep. (That's why everyone should vote for Ron Paul. Cheers!) Seriously, those two sentences reveal everything about joe's motivation for posting here. Well done.

"Read rob's comments - he hasn't learned a damn thing. He still thinks this was a good idea. He still thinks that the reasoning that led us to invade Iraq is the reasoning we should be using to guide our foreign policy." - joe
I think the reasons given in Congress's resolution authorizing force made sense. Hindsight is 20/20, and as Kennan points out, the reason for getting into a war has a tendency to shift once you're in it... Sometimes you go to war based on imperfect intelligence, sometimes only a handful of the compelling reasons stand the test of time. The world is an uncertain place. What a shock...

"All this concern from hawks like rob about the Kurds, while they're still useful as a talking point for his preferred policy." - joe
You only care about the Serbs, Bosnians, and Albanians because you like to use them as political talking points, joe. (See, I can smear you without evidence, too.)

Y"ou just watch - as soon as the hawks get it through their skulls that they're not going to find the pony, they're going to drop the Kurds like they were turd-covered uranium." - joe
joe and his team have already done that, apparently.

"Harrumph, we gave them freedom, and they weren't good enough. Let the barbarians destroy each other." - joe
I would say "coming to the DNC platform soon" but that's like announcing that Spider-Man 3 will be in theaters this summer.

"You just watch." - joe
That's all you can do, joe. Thankfully, I can foresee no threat to national security so dire that it would require bringing you onboard for any sort of national service, much less returning to the draft as some of the guys on your team keep bleating about.

|5.23.07 @ 5:42PM|#

"It's not the withdrawal that will reduce the loss of life, but the political/peace process." - joe
Perhaps if its part of that three-legged Kennan strategy you mock it might stand a chance. Still dicey, though, in any event. The one thing that I'm pretty sure of is that without all three legs of that strategy it definitely WON'T work. Pulling one leg off the stool to put another leg on doesn't increas the stool's stability.

"I don't know if it will work of not, but I know that our withdrawal, renunication of our oil and base claims, and active support for a political process are necessary conditions for success." - joe

No kidding you don't know if it'll work. When you're just parroting what other people said because you just feel that it's right, how could you? You can't know that your solution won't end up like Vietnam or Korea, where U.S. withdrawal encouraged greater heights of aggression against the populations that the U.S. left to defend themselves. (I realize you may not know that the U.S. withdrawal from Korea and the U.S.'s public diplomacy statements that failed to mention Taiwan and Korea encouraged Kim il Sung and Mao Zedong to look to Stalin for support of an invasion to "unify" those nations with their "motherlands." But it's pretty well-documented in the history books. Granted, it's after WW2 and the Korean War books aren't the ones you talk about leaving lying around your house, so you might want to broaden out past the "Hitler Channel" - I mean the "History Channel.")

"Even if it fails, it ends with us out, and having wasted much less blood and treasure, as opposed to staying the course. If that fails, Arlington gets a lot more full." - joe

Arlington gets a lot more full? Stop throwing yourself on the flag-draped coffins of those who have died in service to their country, Cindy. Even those who currently serve who don't support the war, and maybe even some of those who fought and died in a conflict they didn't believe in, would turn their noses up at your histrionics. Shameless.

GILMORE|5.23.07 @ 6:02PM|#

WTF? does this thread have a 500word post minimum or something?

Why has no one said, "why does Jonathan Rauch hate America?" yet?

What with all the vituperation, no one really seems to disagree about any of this in substance... yet you manage to find reasons to fight anyway. E for effort, kudos to all.

Did rob just call the History channel, the "hitler channel?" Thats new.

And is robs argument that, "we should stay in this piece of shit war thats wasting a trillion dollars" because of some unquantifiable future value that may/may not be gleaned from it? I dont really get it.

Even my dad, fire-breathing Factor watching dittohead, ex Marine DI, wonders what the rationale is for remaining in Iraq. The 'it will fall apart'! thing is BS, since it already has to a large degree.

|5.23.07 @ 7:20PM|#

Did GILMORE just roll in to this thread to insult everyone on it, or just me?

And yeah, GILMORE, anyone who has sat through a day's worth of the "History Channel" knows that a LOT of its programming is Hitler and WW2. (Which is the military history joe talks about reading the most, when regaling us with stories about how his wife hates having big books with swastikas on them lying around the house. I suspect he actually just watches the History Channel a lot, while mumbling to himself a la Ozzy Osbourne...)

Admittedly, this is not as true as it used to be now that they've got the Da Vinci Code specials, but here's a sample from tomorrow's History Channel schedule to make my point:

08:00 AM
Hitler's Managers: Alfred Jodl: The General.

09:00 AM
Hitler's Managers: Albert Speer: The Architect.

10:00 AM
Hitler's Managers: Alfried Krupp: The Weapons Builder.

11:00 AM
Hi-Tech Hitler: Hi-Tech Hitler.

(We interrupt the Hisstory Channel's Hitler programming for a brief pause for WW2's Pacific Theater)
12:00 PM Modern Marvels: The Destroyer.
In the bloody battle of the Pacific, one class of fighting ship took on the full ferocity of the Japanese and won.

(And now, back to Hitler!)
01:00 PM Modern Marvels: Nordhausen.
It was the world's largest underground factory--seven miles of tunnels built to manufacture Hitler's secret weapons, primarily the V-2 rocket. But Nordhausen kept more than one secret. Technology and torture went hand-in-hand--25,000 concentration camp workers died there--and some of those associated with Nordhausen later helped take America to the moon.

02:00 PM
Hitler's Managers: Alfred Jodl: The General.

03:00 PM Hitler's Managers: Albert Speer: The Architect.

04:00 PM
Hitler's Managers: Alfried Krupp: The Weapons Builder.

05:00 PM
Hi-Tech Hitler: Hi-Tech Hitler.

Yep! I have NO IDEA why the history Channel might pick up the nickname "The Hitler Channel"...

And GILMORE, one last thing. Don't take this the wrong thing, but just because your Dad says it so, doesn't make it so. Even if he was a DI.

"fire-breathing Factor watching dittohead, ex Marine DI,"

Yowtch! Sounds like a lovely childhood you had there... My ex-wife's Dad could have been that guy. Thankfully, he's my ex-father-in-law!

|5.23.07 @ 9:01PM|#

Whatever, nancy.

Nothing but insults and shoddy psychobabble.

Oh, and *yaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwn* accusations of various despicable beliefs and desires.

Too bad, you were almost acting like a grownup there.

Oh, BTW, "Whatever the U.S. decides is what is going to happen in Iraq, joe."

LOL. Keep shreiking, Kevin Bacon. All is well.

|5.23.07 @ 9:10PM|#

No, GILMORE, rob's argument is "we should stay in this piece of shit war thats wasting a trillion dollars" because people who sound like Noam Chomsky to him say otherwise. And oh, by the way, everyone who doesn't want to stay in the piece of shit war that's wasting a trillion dollars sounds like Noam Chomsky to him.

Wounded pride, partisan rancor, and certainty that only "the right sort" of people could possibly be right. That's all that's keeping this war going.

|5.23.07 @ 10:01PM|#

That's right joe, go back to watching the History Channel and mumbling to yourself.

At least when you argue with the TV it doesn't rhetorically kick your teeth in with actual knowledge and actual history-based comparisons to current events like I do, right?

"Wounded pride, partisan rancor, and certainty that only "the right sort" of people could possibly be right. That's all that's keeping this war going." - joe

You'd know all about wounded pride and partisan rancor, I find it unsurprising that you attribute those characteristics to anyone who disagrees with you - particularly anyone who displays any level of actual knowledge about military history or has any actual military experience.

At least you've given up, as the election gears start to grind, on pretending to be anything other than a partisan hack. At least you're being more open and honest about your partisan nonsense. Your newfound candor is as refreshing as a fart on the subway!

|5.23.07 @ 10:05PM|#

"With the intent to drive us out so they could focus on the folks they really hate." Perhaps they were going to get around to that after they finished greeting us with flowers? I don't think you know very much about Iraqi politics, rob, and I don't think you're very good at figuring out their intentions.

"But you think that getting rid of the only thing stopping a group from killing another group is a good idea." Yaaaaaawwwwwnnnnnnnnnn. Oh, look, and Iraq hawk hiding behind character assassination. Well, knock me over with a feather.

"I'm the one who's babbling?" Yes, you are. Your capacity to be rational about this war has taken such a beating that you can't tell the difference between what I've written and Chomskyite anti-imperialism. Hence, you babble about the Vietnam War, Noam Chomsky, and a series of arguments I never made, and don't believe in. I guess that's what happens when you look at every disagreement about policy as an extension of your partisan jihad.

"Uh-huh. How well did that work with the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan again?"

Ah, the "those people are all the same" face shows through. You don't actually have to know anything about these two situations, becasue those people are all the same.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban and al Qaeda were two peas in a pod, sharing an ideology and working together under the same umbrella. In Iraq, the Iraqi Sunnis and al Qaeda have often fought against each other - the Anbar shieks being a good example - and have opposed ideologies. That's why the Taliban gave al Qaeda freedom to operate and assistance while they were in power, while the Iraqi Sunnis dealt with Islamists via secret police.

"And your counter-insurgency book tells you that you can turn the population against the insurgency by abandoning that population?" As all 16 of our intelligence agencies, as well as the Iraqi Sunnis themselves and the history of the past three decades keep telling us, the Iraqi Sunnis are against al Qaedists already, and are only working with them because of our occupation (and, recently, because of the civil war it brought into existence).

"Actually, U.S. presence is probably all that keeps the lid on at all, sadly, in place of Saddam's regime which served a similar purpose." It took two years of al Qaeda terrorist to spark this civil war - atrocities that our presence did absolutely nothing to stop. Lid? What lid?

"Removing one leg of the three (economic, diplomatic, military) isn't going to make the kitchen stool that is Iraq MORE stable, but less." Uh, rob, you might not know this, but Iraq has a military capacity that far outweighs that of al Qaeda. Right now, under our careful oversight, it's being used for other things, like waging a civil war. If the United States can bring about a political solution by withdrawing our military, the amount and effectiveness of military capacity being used against al Qaeda in Iraq increases, while the operational capacity of al Qaeda decreases.

"What would that solution look like, joe?" Not for us to decide, rob. Of course, if you're silly enough to believe that we can make whatever we want happen in Iraq, then admitting that the future of Iraq is in the hands of the Iraqis must look strange. That you continue to cling to such a belief in late May 2007 is quite a revealing statement.

"But how does that square with your plan to withdraw and renounce our forward bases?" Quite easily - we leave the areas where our presence is unwanted, useless, and provocative, and stay in areas where our presence is welcome, beneficial, and stabilizing.

"Uh-huh... That's me. You got me." Yes, it is. You still can't get the significance of non-state actors operating covertly, and the limited usefulness of main-force military operations against them, and the complete uselessness of using main-force military operations against unrelated parties just because they have "good targets" throught your hidebound skull. When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

"That I recognize that a similarly based strategy can work in the current war is foolish because you think it can't be adapted to fight non-state actors?" No, the fact that you refuse to adapt it makes you a dinosaur. For example, your inability to get your head around the idea that the presence of American troops has effects beyond their military capacity. You won't address the fact that our own intelligence agencies, many of our senior generals, and the Iraqis themselves report that our presence has driven the violence that it was supposed to suppress, because you can't. Politics to you only means our government and theirs; that we need primarily to look at the political consequences of our actions on the general population hasn't penetrated your skill yet. You're a fossil, fighting the last war.

"Oh yeah, the Maginot Line Doctrine, a Chomskyite mea culpa" You can't even acknowledge what my argument is, nevermind consider it. It's too bad you're so hung up on proving how much better you are than those damn lefties, because you probably do have the mental firepower to process all of this. You just refuse to, because it's easier on your wounded pride.

"You're the guy who sounds like him..." Only to you, rob. Only to people who really make the effort to play dumb.

"joe and his team have already done that, apparently." This is how honest you are - you read my stating that I want to keep troops in Kurdistan - that I'm afraid they will end up being withdrawn - and you still accuse me of wanting to abandon them. Just so you can get a shot in at the mean, nasty Democrats.

|5.23.07 @ 10:13PM|#

"Pulling one leg off the stool to put another leg on doesn't increas the stool's stability."

Getting the Iraqis to turn their guns against the jihadists, while freeing up the forces we have in Iraq to actually fight against al Qaeda as needed would increase the strength of the military leg, not cut it off. When did the people who used to talk about scary, aggressive Iraq convince themselves that Iraq is without military capacity?

"No kidding you don't know if it'll work." Just as you don't know your stay-the-course plan will work. We're just playing the odds here. I daresay you personally, and your side in general, have pretty effectively demonstrated your inability to make good judgements about those odds.

"You'd know all about wounded pride and partisan rancor" Partisan rancor, yes. I hate what you arrogant morons have done to this country and its security. But wounded pride? I assure you, my record of being consistently right, and watching my opponents make asses of themselves, in every dispute over this war has not resulted in wounded pride. My smug emissions are up, but my pride is just fine, thanks.

GILMORE|5.23.07 @ 11:33PM|#

rob | May 23, 2007, 7:20pm | #

Did GILMORE just roll in to this thread to insult everyone on it, or just me?

uh, neither man, i just was poking my head in the room from the kitchen. I didnt take the time to read all 200,000 words dropped in your debate, and just caught a few snippets that sounded a little loose.

re: Hitler Channel

thanks for the explanation. the extra detail was not needed. I used to joke with papa that A&E, Discovery, and History channel spent more time on 'weapons of war' type shit than any genuine history or science. He explained that it's because they can get lots of military swag footage and whatnot from national archives per gratis. Public teat type thing. Voluntary propaganda.

Anyway, I was more interested in a succinct explanation of what you think the winning plan is for Iraq, as opposed to trying to offend you. Yes, ex DI fire-breathing red-staters arent right all the time, we agree. Military historians and ex CIA analysts are wrong too. So is James Baker. Who is right here, again?

JG

|5.24.07 @ 9:15AM|#

The people who predicted quagmire, civil war, more terrorism, and expanding Iranian hegemony.

|5.24.07 @ 6:49PM|#

"I don't think you know very much about Iraqi politics, rob, and I don't think you're very good at figuring out their intentions." - joe

Funny, I don't think you know anything about counter-insurgency, foreign policy, or human nature. Funny, right?

"Yaaaaaawwwwwnnnnnnnnnn. Oh, look, and Iraq hawk hiding behind character assassination. Well, knock me over with a feather." - joe

You're crying character assassination after I pointed out that I think it's a bad idea to pull out the only thing currently filling the power vacuum that deposing Saddam left? Well, I guess I'd offer you a hanky, but you're not going to prop up your weak argument with crocodile tears, joe.

"Your capacity to be rational about this war has taken such a beating that you can't tell the difference between what I've written and Chomskyite anti-imperialism." - joe

Insults aren't propping you up, either.

"Hence, you babble about the Vietnam War, Noam Chomsky, and a series of arguments I never made, and don't believe in." - joe

Really? I thought it was pretty clear that i disagree with your specifically stated, Chomsky-like plan to withdraw, renounce all national security interests, etc. I even quoted the part that sounds Chomsky-esque. I think it's kinda cute that you think you invented it, though...

"I guess that's what happens when you look at every disagreement about policy as an extension of your partisan jihad." - joe

Uh-huh, I'm the partisan. Yup... The guy who voted for Clinton twice. Sure.

"Ah, the 'those people are all the same' face shows through. You don't actually have to know anything about these two situations, becasue those people are all the same." - joe

Excuse me?!? Stop projecting your closet "-isms" onto me. Man, even Freud would shake his head at you in dismay and wonder.

"In Afghanistan, the Taliban and al Qaeda were two peas in a pod, sharing an ideology and working together under the same umbrella. In Iraq, the Iraqi Sunnis and al Qaeda have often fought against each other - the Anbar shieks being a good example - and have opposed ideologies. That's why the Taliban gave al Qaeda freedom to operate and assistance while they were in power, while the Iraqi Sunnis dealt with Islamists via secret police." - joe

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

"As all 16 of our intelligence agencies, as well as the Iraqi Sunnis themselves and the history of the past three decades keep telling us, the Iraqi Sunnis are against al Qaedists already, and are only working with them because of our occupation (and, recently, because of the civil war it brought into existence)." - joe

If we could convince the UN forces to take over peacekeeping duties, I'd be all for it. Since we can't, the fact that the Sunnis want us out and hate the jihadists doesn't really matter much to the equation.

"It took two years of al Qaeda terrorist to spark this civil war - atrocities that our presence did absolutely nothing to stop. Lid? What lid?" - joe

Next you'll be screeching "nuclear weapons didn't serve as a deterrent during the Cold War."

"Uh, rob, you might not know this, but Iraq has a military capacity that far outweighs that of al Qaeda. Right now, under our careful oversight, it's being used for other things, like waging a civil war. If the United States can bring about a political solution by withdrawing our military, the amount and effectiveness of military capacity being used against al Qaeda in Iraq increases, while the operational capacity of al Qaeda decreases." - joe

That's a BIG "if." Nothing in your proposal makes it look like it would come true.

"Not for us to decide, rob. Of course, if you're silly enough to believe that we can make whatever we want happen in Iraq, then admitting that the future of Iraq is in the hands of the Iraqis must look strange. That you continue to cling to such a belief in late May 2007 is quite a revealing statement." - joe

No, I simply understand the concepts of 4th Generation Warfare. I also remember that the U.S. does pretty much whatever it decides to do and sticks to: go to the moon, develop the atom bomb, first defeat and later convert Germany and Japan into Western-style democracies, work out a foreign policy with Communist China... Oh, but you say it can't be done, and that's really the only thing that can stop it. It's a self-fulfilling, defeatist prophecy.

"Quite easily - we leave the areas where our presence is unwanted, useless, and provocative, and stay in areas where our presence is welcome, beneficial, and stabilizing." - joe

And only you know exactly how and where and when. Genius!

"You still can't get the significance of non-state actors operating covertly, and the limited usefulness of main-force military operations against them, and the complete uselessness of using main-force military operations against unrelated parties just because they have 'good targets' throught your hidebound skull. When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail." - joe

Yes, joe, and when you're ready to throw in the towel even the collapse of your foe can't stop you from losing. Funny how you think I'm a "only use the hammer" type even though I'm the guy that believes in using all the arrows in the quiver (diplomatic, economic and military), and you're the guy who wants to rely on one arrow alone.

"your inability to get your head around the idea that the presence of American troops has effects beyond their military capacity. You won't address the fact that our own intelligence agencies, many of our senior generals, and the Iraqis themselves report that our presence has driven the violence that it was supposed to suppress, because you can't. Politics to you only means our government and theirs; that we need primarily to look at the political consequences of our actions on the general population hasn't penetrated your skill yet." - joe

True, there are always unintended consequences. The funny thing is that you actually think your plan will avoid them. At least I recognize that the alternative is more likely to cause massive body-counts. (Your plan is more likely to result in the U.S. pullout leaving a power vacuum that will encourage Iraq invading Iran, or just a bloody civil war that makes Rwanda and the West Bank look tame.)

"You can't even acknowledge what my argument is, nevermind consider it. It's too bad you're so hung up on proving how much better you are than those damn lefties, because you probably do have the mental firepower to process all of this. You just refuse to, because it's easier on your wounded pride." - joe

From the back-handed compliment/slash insult files... My pride has nothing to do with any of this, but the fact that a guy as smart as you has drank so much left-wing Kool-Aid is pretty disheartening for the future of the U.S. and the worse the U.S. does, the worse off the world seems to get.

"This is how honest you are - you read my stating that I want to keep troops in Kurdistan - that I'm afraid they will end up being withdrawn - and you still accuse me of wanting to abandon them. Just so you can get a shot in at the mean, nasty Democrats." - joe

Well, at least you want to save the Kurds. Too bad you're willing to let the rest of Iraq become an ocean of blood. I'm happy to take shots at the Republicans, too, but you refuse to argue their position...

"Getting the Iraqis to turn their guns against the jihadists, while freeing up the forces we have in Iraq to actually fight against al Qaeda as needed would increase the strength of the military leg, not cut it off. When did the people who used to talk about scary, aggressive Iraq convince themselves that Iraq is without military capacity?" - joe

It would be great if we could get the Iraqis to do their own counter-insurgency. After we decimated their military and made it far less likely they can conduct counter-insurgency or counter-Iran operations. You must have missed the last slew of stories about the U.S. desperately trying to stand up the Iraqi forces so that it can stand down.

"Just as you don't know your stay-the-course plan will work. We're just playing the odds here. I daresay you personally, and your side in general, have pretty effectively demonstrated your inability to make good judgements about those odds." - joe

You're just confused about what side I'm on, joe. Staying the course is good advice when it refers to remaining resolute despite setbacks. But you should always be willing ot adapt your tactics to imporve your odds of achieiving your strategic goals - "On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters of principle, stand like a rock" as jefferson said. The greatest chance of losing a 4th Gen war for a major world power is for them to simply give up. That's your recommendation, joe, not mine.

dhex|5.24.07 @ 8:05PM|#

"Did GILMORE just roll in to this thread to insult everyone on it, or just me?"

have faith, child.

given enough time, he'll get to everyone.