Captain's Quarters -

I think it's a very cogent column, but Will's wrong about the democracy boondoggle being a "fallback rationale." I mean, the thing was *called* "Iraqi Freedom." Those of us who have soured on the thing must admit that Bush was quite open from the very beginning about his determination to bring the Iraqis democracy at all costs. I know it makes us look kind of silly for having supported it in the first place, but there you go.

In fact, I think terrorism and WMDs were merely the pretext. Bush's ludicrous democratic messianism was *always* his primary rationale for going to war. It's part and parcel of his political outlook, along with his determination not to control the borders of the United States. His ultimate goal is to be nice, which is why he's a failure as a president.

George Will should stick to baseball. As former NYC Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia once said, "When I make a mistake, it's a dooz!" The same principle applies to Will.

Your last point is the most important one. You're too polite to make the obvious political point: the sanctions regime against Saddam created by Bush the Elder, and followed by Clinton, was collapsing due to the Oil For Food scandal at the U.N. Most of our "allies" had been bribed. Saddam was about to win the "peace" through a course of bribery and corruption.

The paleocons don't like the Iraq War. Will is a paleocon. You can't produce evidence that will satisfy him, Ed.

Well, I gave up reading Will about 5 years ago; he just kept getting stranger and less coherent/consistent as he got older. He has continued down that path even further with this article.

I thought I heard that in the process of cleaning offices at the UN in NYC, vials of chemicals were found in inspectors' offices. Ed, do you know anything about this?

As for Will, he's coasting on his previous reputation - I don't value him much,haven't for the past few years. This is another nail in the coffin.

But hey, 16 months from now, they won't have W to push around - then again, they'll blaim everything for the next N years on him so...

So if Bush flies to Baghdad tomorrow this will mean the Surge is working?

I really have no idea if the Surge has succeeded or not. It's only part of the overall strategy I think so I wonder if too much emphasis has been placed on trying to determine its success or failure, at this point. It would be like deciding on June 30, 1944, WW II was lost because we got stuck on Omaha Beach for days and then got bogged down fighting our way through the hedgerows to Paris.

But maybe that's not an apt analogy. A military historian, I am not.

It's not that hard to decipher. The success of Bush's policy is up to the US military and the Iraqi government. George Will is not in a position to evaluate either, but he knows Bush can't predict their performance, let alone guarantee it.

Therefore, Bush's policy is a flop among the smart set inside the Beltway.

Inside the administration, the democracy angle is not a fallback rationale. This a main why we went into Iraq.

BUT, the war was not sold this way. It was sold as a necessary act to keep America safe. Without the threat of Iraq's WMDs, the invasion would not have happened.

First, in answer to J's question, the vials labeled phosgene, a chemical weapon, were found to contain a non-toxic solvent. The question still remains why a U.N. office would have vials with such labels, regardless of the contents.

Second, in response to quickjustice, don't go overboard on paleo vs. neo. I'm in my mid-fifties, and I've always been a conservative Republican, from a family that has been conservative Republican since the emigration from Norway. So, in the sense of longevity defining paleos, I'm one. But I'm an Iraq war hawk and I'm a staunch backer of Israel.

Third, I too gave up on George Will several years ago. He wrote an article, showing no signs of being tongue in cheek, about how people who had American Flyer model trains as kids are brilliant, cultured and refined, and about how those of us who had Lionel model trains were stupid, thuggish clods.

Please remember, the turn around in Anbar was being reported nearly a year ago, not as a result of the "surge":

Tribes in volatile Iraqi city of Ramadi vow to hunt down "terrorists"

The Associated Press

Published: September 19, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq A prominent Sunni tribal leader on Tuesday asked the Iraqi government to legitimize a newly formed tribal council in one of Iraq's most volatile provinces to enable it to fight "terrorists where ever we find them."

Tribal leaders and clerics in Ramadi, the capital of the violent Anbar province west of Baghdad, met last week and set up a 43-member Anbar Salvation Council with a force of about 20,000 men to fight the virulent insurgency in this western Sunni city.

Will is pro-gun control. Not a good thing.

As a commentator, George Will has been past his shelf life for a long time. The column is simply a continuation of a trend.

Will hits the nail on the head here:

A democracy, wrote the diplomat and scholar George Kennan, "fights for the very reason that it was forced to go to war. It fights to punish the power that was rash enough and hostile enough to provoke it -- to teach that power a lesson it will not forget, to prevent the thing from happening again. Such a war must be carried to the bitter end." Which is why "unconditional surrender" was a natural U.S. goal in World War II and why Americans were so uncomfortable with three "wars of choice" since then -- in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq.

What "forced" America to go to war in 2003 -- the "gathering danger" of weapons of mass destruction -- was fictitious. That is one reason this war will not be fought, at least not by Americans, to the bitter end. The end of the war will, however, be bitter for Americans, partly because the president's decision to visit Iraq without visiting its capital confirmed the flimsiness of the fallback rationale for the war -- the creation of a unified, pluralist Iraq.

The fatal flaw of Iraq was how and why we invaded. It just inherently was not the right thing to do. Now we're stuck 4 years later trying to figure out how big of a mess we created. It's done nothing to make the US, Iraq or the world safer. And the future stability and nature of Iraq is still very much in doubt.

Tom Shipley: Inside the administration, the democracy angle is not a fallback rationale. This a main why we went into Iraq.

BUT, the war was not sold this way. It was sold as a necessary act to keep America safe.

Um, could it POSSIBLY be that one flows from the other? That a democratic Iraq helps keep America safe?

Which seems safer for America:

--- An Iraq run by a homocidal dictator who pays the families of suicide bombers, has used WMD in the past both on his enemies and his own people, and has two even more psychotic sons waiting to replace him when dead ol' dad shuffles off this mortal coil, or;

--- An Iraq that has a democratically-elected government?

Considering that Iraq has turned into a training and recruiting ground for al qaeda, the "democracy" there is only held up by the US military, the current president has been seen holding hands with the president of Iran, and there's a very real possibility of Iraq devolving into a full-out sunni/shi'te war even if we stay for another 10 years, I'd say it's at least a toss up.

OK... everyone who believes that you can take a country who has been under a bloody dictator and has been fighting among themselves for years should all of a sudden - with the advent of American troops, become a cohesive and rational democratic government? You guys are out of touch with reality. Just because we have instant communications these days cannot cure the ills of the past overnight. It will take time and resources as history has shown over and over again!

I believe progress is being made in Iraq and that we are helping that fledging democracy. It ain't perfect and it ain't pretty and mistakes have been and will be made. THIS IS NOT A PERFECT WORLD!!!

Give it a chance and stop listening to the doom-sayers sitting in their comfortable living rooms sipping on a cold one!

Rome wasn't built in a day....

Term limits for pundits!

Isn't there some history between Will and the Bush family going back to the Reagan years when Will called Bush elder a lap dog?

I really only half read Will being that he is coopted IMO, by Sunday show he resides on as the token conservative.

"BUT, the war was not sold this way. It was sold as a necessary act to keep America safe. Without the threat of Iraq's WMDs, the invasion would not have happened."

Perhaps not in the MSM...but conservative media gave Bush's comments on the subject the widest distribution in the slow march to war.

"A democracy, wrote the diplomat and scholar George Kennan, "fights for the very reason that it was forced to go to war. It fights to punish the power that was rash enough and hostile enough to provoke it -- to teach that power a lesson it will not forget, to prevent the thing from happening again. Such a war must be carried to the bitter end."

This totally fails to explain British foriegn policy from 1600 to 1939, as well as US wars apart from our civil war, and the Second World War. The Kaiser's govt collapsed of itself.

So many of the same old comments. And still not one referencing the most telling, quote of all. Only one person could authorize the beginning of the invasion. And what did that one person say?

"If Saddam disarms, we will not invade."

G.W. Bush - 2003

I'll leave it to you to go look up the quote (with video readily available from that speech) if you really care to hear it.

Isn't George Will the guy who specializes in baseball ... ?

Intellectual mercenary, he's just trying to boost his readership ...

Tom Shipley,

Predictably, you ducked the question, so I'll ask it again:

Which would seem to be safer for the United States:

--- Iraq under Saddam or his sons, or;

--- Iraq as a democracy?

In attempting option 2, we may indeed get an outcome worse than option 1, but it's rather like surgery. Which is worse:

--- Living with a malignant brain tumor, or;

--- Going through surgery to remove the tumor?

Yes, there is a possible bad outcome for option 2, i.e. dying on the operating table or that the surgeon couldn't remove the tumor and you're back to square one. But of the two initial options, which appears better?

Now, as for Will and his cries of doom 'n' gloom... I believe that no less a conservative than Bill Buckley has said the same things. I think their logic is foolish and pessimistic; naysayers were bleating much the same argument with regards to Germany and Japan after 1945, or the South after 1865. Happily for all concerned, President Truman saw the wisdom in sticking it out and making democracies out of our former enemies.

I've also heard the arguement that our strategy in Iraq doesn't take into account human (in this case, Iraqi) nature. Is it not a founding principle of our country that we believe that people WANT democracy and liberty? Could it be that, given a choice between an eternity of blood feuds and religious warfare or peace and liberty, people even in Iraq will choose the latter?

One final note: I have scoffed before about the idea that "spreading democracy" is some sort of new-fangled "neo-con" idea. A brief perusal of the history of our foreign and military policy since 1776 shows the opposite: spreading democracy has OFTEN been a goal of US policy. Let's turn the clock back to January 20, 1961:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

President John F. Kennedy

I guess JFK was a neo-con before neo-cons even existed, eh?

So, if Iraq is a training and recruiting ground for aQ, where are the graduates?

We are, and have been, killing them faster than aQ can recruit them. We've also been whittling away at their leadership cadre (I won't call it a command structure). Call it the flypaper effect.

By their own internal communications, we know aQ considers a moderate Iraq an existential threat, which I consider pretty good confirmation that creating one is a good strategic goal.

"If Saddam disarms, we will not invade."

And he didn't. He didn't even demonstrate what we found out later: that in their flight in 1991, many Iraqi units just abandoned their WMD issue. We were able to track that within a few months. Saddam had 12 years and a hundred thousand men and we outdid him.

Need only look at the pictures today of planes flying into the twin towers, if you can find them, to know that the war on terror is and should go down in history as a success.
In Afgahnistan we have Muslims fighting radical Muslims. In Iraq the moderates are helping us against the radicals as they have no desire to live under brutality even from other Muslims.
Iran is surrounded and becoming increasingly isolated and desperate. It's people also have no desire to live in the 18th century.
The Berlin wall fell in a relatively short amount of time once the tide turned as did the old Soviet Union.
Libya gave up nukes, N. Korea is hinting at the same. I would hate to be a Dem or Republican on the wrong side of history when the mideast decides to remove the radicals from their towns and homes and join the 21st century. Don't bet against the US military or the yearning of people to be free, free to live, work, and raise their families without fear of being blown to bits.
At a minimum W. has identified the enemy as radical Muslims and is killing and capturing them in serious numbers with the help of fellow Muslims. Brilliant!

"The paleocons don't like the Iraq War. Will is a paleocon"

Will has never been a paleocon. Going right back to the 1980s he's been a regular target of paleocons. Will is a beltway establishment conservative; that's about as far from paleoconservatism as one can get and closer to neoconservatism.

George Will pens to paper what the majority of American's have already come to accept, that this President is a bozo, the war effort was wrong going in and even more wrong to continue it.

Unfortunately we don't have politicians who are willing to stop it as the American voters wish. They don't represent us.

Doc, I did not duck the question.

You did, however, change the question.

You first ask, if a democratically-elected Iraqi government seemed safer than Hussein's murderous regime... and I said it's a toss up, citing my reasons for it.

I in no way ducked the question.

So the Surge is a failure because the Secret Service cannot guarantee the safety of the President from a sniper's bullet in Baghdad? Is American democracy a failure because gunmen killed the Kennedy brothers? This is not merely setting an unreasonable standard for what constitutes success, it is over the moon.

And it appears Will has now joined the vile left with his vicious and stupid accusation that the war was a put up job.
---
From Websters online

fictitious
One entry found for fictitious.

Main Entry: fic·ti·tious
Pronunciation: fik-'ti-sh&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin ficticius artificial, feigned, from fictus
1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of fiction : IMAGINARY
2 a : conventionally or hypothetically assumed or accepted b of a name : FALSE, ASSUMED
3 : not genuinely felt
- fic·ti·tious·ly adverb
- fic·ti·tious·ness noun
synonyms FICTITIOUS, FABULOUS, LEGENDARY, MYTHICAL, APOCRYPHAL mean having the nature of something imagined or invented. FICTITIOUS implies fabrication and suggests artificiality or contrivance more than deliberate falsification or deception .
----

You can file this one under the heading: America Went To War And Some Americans Lost Their Minds. (And all sense of fairness and decency. This revisionism is helping no one, least of all Paleocons like Will.)

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 09/11/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
Today highlighting 9/11 posts, along with other must read info from around the net.

Looks like George Will isn't the only one who's skeptical about what Petraeus has to say about Bush's "surge":

GOP senators challenge Petraeus, Crocker

Senate Republicans sharply challenged President Bush's top military general and ambassador in Iraq today in a blatant demonstration of misgivings within the GOP about the protracted war.

When even Norm Coleman, literally, says he wants to see light at the end of the tunnel in Iraq, it's safe to say the "surge" has flopped.

"The Oil-For-Food program would never have been discovered had Saddam's regime not fallen when and how it did."

Well, I believe the program was a pretty open secret.

The CORRUPTION of that program may well have remained a secret.

I am still in shock from yesterday and the unbeleivably vile attack on a member of our military, what's next are they lefties all going to start wearing purple band-aids!!!

docjim505:

"Is it not a founding principle of our country that we believe that people WANT democracy and liberty?"

Well, no, it isn't. The founding principles of our country tell us nothing about what other peoples want. Those principles were worked out for a specific people with a specific political tradition.

And even if it were, so what? The founding principles of our country weren't handed down to Moses on Mt. Sinai, they were worked out by brilliant men who were nevertheless, like all men, fallible. If Madison and Jefferson believed that all peoples were equally capable or desirous of democratic self-government at any given time, then they were wrong.

The idea that that Anglo-American principles of government can simply be grafted onto any nation regardless of its own history is silly--and inherently unconservative. Obviously anyone would rather not be imprisoned or beaten or fed into a paper shredder, but the idea that most people desire our version of political liberty is very arrogant.

I would suggest that given a government which is not actively tyrannical, most people will value necessities such as security and food far more than luxuries such as suffrage. In fact, many people may see our kind of freewheeling liberty as quite threatening to their societies' moral or religious values. That may strike you as being obviously wrong, but that's kind of the point I'm making: It's quite dangerous to try to impose on some other people what we think they want--or rather, what we think we would want if we were them

In any case, it is not the job of the United States to bring civilization to the barbarian lands, especially at the cost of our soldiers' lives.

"I guess JFK was a neo-con before neo-cons even existed, eh?"

No, JFK was a liberal.

All the early neocons were also liberals. In fact there is very little in neoconservatism that's genuinely "conservative."

Uh, Scott, I think you might want to reconsider that.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This nation was most assuredly founded on the notion that freedom is an inalienable right.

Suffrage as luxury. Now THERE is quite a thought.

Every time you try to portray the GOP tent as a small tent; you get this 180-view. And, you see all sorts inside. Peeing out. George Will. Pat Buchanan. Shows ya, in a democracy you hear from all sorts.

As to Iraq? Did you know by the time October soon rolls around, we're gonna have 210,000 troops in Irak.

HELLO.

We're rotating in our best! Men and women not only TRAINED WELL; but earning ribbons. That go onto the chest. As to the other military gain? We've got the fewest casualties EVER.

What can you make of this?

While the affirmative action crowd is probably losing their grips on this country ~ they're left over at the pig trough ... where pork is always served. (Oh, and the Chinese, too, know how to "throw money around.) That's it!

So, I'll take a guess that up ahead we're gonna have a pool of patriotic Americans most people will salute. They will have EARNED their ribbons!

Won't be a bunch of ass kissers hanging out in DC toilets, looking for a few pricks.

If we needed a song? The End is Near for those enscounsed at the pentagon. Who thought they'd stay on top by sitting in their swivel chairs. The next bird they see? Will be my up-stretched middle finger.

Hand signals. I don't even have to say another word.

Tom Shipley,

Oh, yes you did. I offered a choice: Iraq with Saddam vs. Iraq as a democracy. You ducked by complaining that Iraq can't possibly ever be a democracy, that it's a breeding ground for al Qaeda, etc, etc (usual lib talking points), and then claimed "it's a toss up".

ScottM,

What part of "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." do you not understand?

Ever heard the phrase "a city upon a hill"?

Google men called "Woodrow Wilson" and "Franklin Roosevelt" or something called "The Fourteen Points". Go to your local library (careful: the FBI may be watching!) and read up on the Spanish-American War and its aftermath. Amidst all the muck and confusion of imperialism and commercialism and nationalism, you'll find a bright little threat of democracy running through, the idea that EVERYBODY wants to have something like what we've got and that we can help them do it.

The founding principles of our country weren't handed down to Moses on Mt. Sinai, they were worked out by brilliant men who were nevertheless, like all men, fallible.

I guess you're not into "American exceptionalism", are you?

No, JFK was a liberal.

Of course. That's why he cut taxes, boosted military spending, and got us more heavily involved in that little tiff in Southeast Asia.

But you're right: JFK was a classic liberal. Unlike the modern libs, he believed in American exceptionalism and the universal appeal of democracy and liberty. This is one of the reasons that he was out in front on integration and civil rights, fracturing the country and his party in a seemingly hopeless attempt to force democracy and integration on Southerners, who had a centuries-long history of racial animus and violence.

"No, JFK was a liberal."

A very muscular one, though. He'd be vilified by liberals for his views if he were alive today. This is the man who stated:

"I hear it said that West Berlin is militarily untenable - and so was Bastogne, and so, in fact, was Stalingrad. Any danger spot is tenable if men - brave men - will make it so."

Monkie, you don't know how to count!

You think George Will writes for the masses?

I think, on the other hand, that his audience is limited. Being read by the likes of Pat Buchanan, tends to do that.

Free to write about anything.

But don't use what falls onto it, when the puppy defecates, as a measure of public opinion. That's just blowing smoke out of your arse.

Sure, the press zero's in on their favorites; because they think they're spreading "gospel."

Well, same place, long ago, couldn't sell the EDSEL. But it wasn't for lack of trying.

In a way, this stuff reminds me what happened when people realized Rock Hudson was really gay! Handsome guy lost his audience. And, then he died of AIDS.

"If Saddam disarms, we will not invade."

Disarming means verifably accounting for stockpiles. This had been an ongoing issue with Iraq since inspections were in place. In addition to the charge that he may have been continuing with new programs, there was also the argument that he never accurately accounted for his old programs either. If he did in fact dispose of his WMD's it was his responsibilty to verify it so that we could close the books.
Remember during the whole run up to the War how hans blix read off a list of all these weapons that were unaccounted for? So when did he account for those weapons?

I've always had the impression that G. Will had it in for the President ever since W beat Will's guy McPain during the primaries. He has written ever since then like he has an axe to grind against this president.

You ducked by complaining that Iraq can't possibly ever be a democracy

I didn't say anywhere thought I though Iraq could never be a democracy. A sure sign of a poor argument is putting words into someone's mouth, then attacking those words.

You've done it twice now, once when denying you did it the first time. Unbelievable.

I quit taking George Will seriously several years ago and seldom read his writings; they are generally a waste of time. He seems to have a personal grudge against anything "Bush", and has been espousing conventional wisdom (which is not wisdom at all) all too frequently.

I think George Will is reacting mostly to the fact that he has become about as irrelevant as the rest of the Old Media self-worshippers. Maybe he's still on Stuffinenvelopes tiresome Sunday program. I haven't bothered to check for about a year and a half now.

It is interesting to note how much more shrill and personal many of the Lefties posting here have become. One can hope that perhaps that is a sign of reluctance to being dragged down the OBL rabbit hole by the lunatic fringe of the Democrat Party and the stranglehold moveon.org has on their leadership. Maybe there's enough sense left in some of the JFK / Truman Democrats to realize that attacking a 4 star general of very high character instead of bin Laden is an insane thing to do especially when that general is protecting their angry little selves from their angry little selves.

I think its ridiculous to declare the surge a success or failure at this point as it has only benn fully implemented a few months. There is definite signs of progress militarily but the political progress is lacking to say the least. There has been some but mostly at the local level. It seems like it is common sense that political progress would lag behind military progress.

As far as Iraq being a great training ground for al Qeada, it has also been a great killing ground for them as well both phyically and ideologically. When your fellow Sunni's turn on you, that not a good sign for long term success.

George Will is just another rightie who went to bat for the other side. He is about as helpful as Robert Novak.

Sorry, Tom, you're right: you never said "Iraq could never be a democracy." Let's review what you DID say:

I asked:

Which seems safer for America:

--- An Iraq run by a homocidal dictator who pays the families of suicide bombers, has used WMD in the past both on his enemies and his own people, and has two even more psychotic sons waiting to replace him when dead ol' dad shuffles off this mortal coil, or;

--- An Iraq that has a democratically-elected government?

You responded:

Considering that Iraq has turned into a training and recruiting ground for al qaeda, the "democracy" there is only held up by the US military, the current president has been seen holding hands with the president of Iran, and there's a very real possibility of Iraq devolving into a full-out sunni/shi'te war even if we stay for another 10 years, I'd say it's at least a toss up. [emphasis mine - dj505

So, yes, you're right: you didn't say that Iraq COULDN'T be a democracy, you simply say that it is one now only because we're propping it up.

But let's continue on with my original question. You admit that Iraq COULD become a democracy, no? Oh, yes, that's right: you think we have to throw them under the bus so they'll "do it themselves". OK. Let's assume that we DO throw them under the bus and they succeed in becoming a stable democracy: do you think that this situation will be safer for the United States than Iraq under Saddam?

Will is also a long time supporter of replacing Americans with Mexicans and other foreigners as is the Ellis Island romanticist Bob Novak. Anyone who thinks Will is a paleocon doesn't have a clue. Novak, on the other hand, has some paleo views, and some that are libertarian. But mostly he's just a corporate conservative.

When has Will been to Iraq or bothered to talk to Iraqis,current military? Just curious. As far as the US imposing Democracy I don't think that works or is the idea. The goal is to defeat radical Islamists who have proven they will attack and eat even other Muslims much as the Move-on .orgs do here.
The absolute best way to do this is for Iraqi's, Iraians, Syrians to rise up from the grass roots and say enough of the slaughter, the poverty, the dictatorial behaviors, women as second class citizens etc. This done neighborhood by neighborhood, Tribe by tribe, province by province is the only way to build the national will to defeat the facists, and a much stronger nation is a result.
The leaders as servants to the people are much better than rulers and oppressors. Something the current congress critters have forgotten and are paying for with the lowest approval ratings ever. After all this great country started from the grass roots with a little ol Boston Tea Party. Perhaps its' time for another.

"When even Norm Coleman, literally, says he wants to see light at the end of the tunnel in Iraq, it's safe to say the "surge" has flopped."

I don't know about "safe", you might get tackled by Ed Shultz or Al Franken for looking the wrong way when you say it.

Are you so blind that you think anybody in the GOP is going to collapse because Norm Coleman--or any other Senator-- speaks out against our values and conclusions?