From conservative pundit George Will, via the Washington Post:
Foreign policy ‘realists’ considered Middle East stability the goal. The realists’ critics, who regard realism as reprehensibly unambitious, considered stability the problem. That problem has been solved.
I try to avoid talking about national politics most of the time here because it’s practically the most unproductive conversation a group of people can have. But the last week or two the Iraq war has really been chapping my ass. I think Will’s “reprehensibly unambitious” description is brutally on-point. You know things are bad when Henry Kissinger seems like a good choice to run things by comparison.
I am of the belief that our problem in Iraq is now two fold.
Most important was Rummy. The standard argument of sheer incompetence or arrogance leading him to ignore several military advisors pleas for more troops heading in, and not preparing for anything other than a quick invasion is true.
I think also in 04 and 05 when we started saying we are winning, people equated that with “we won”. What should have been said is we are winning, not nearly done, and we can not let up for a second if victory is what we want. And that charade of “Mission Accomplished” didn’t help the cause either.
Next time we decide to start a war, can we clone FDR or Truman or Ike or some other president who can lead us in a war?
For the record: This war is a good war, we need to change what we are doing, we can not leave Iraq now, this war *IS NOT* part of the GWOT and *IS NOT* helping us in said war.
Remember the “conventional wisdom”-
We must continue to follow the leaders who have been wrong about everything for 5 years. It would be a disaster to follow the ones who have been right about everything for 5 years.
Makes sense, huh…
Britney Spears seems like a good choice to run things by comparison. Maybe Groucho Marx.