[BlackGriffen]

Well, I read it without reading the title, so it had a little surprise for me waiting in the middle. You'll find the Op-Ed here.

Read it?

Really?

Good.

I was surprised at how close the parallels between Iraq and Vietnam are thus far. We do have one advantage over the situation in Nam, at the moment, no strong Chinese or Soviet backing.

If we don't internationalize the effort but quick, we may be forced to permit internationalization as we retreat in shame and defeat. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the potential benefits of internationalization outweigh whatever potential harm there would be in giving up control.

BlackGriffen

[rampant]

Retreat in defeat and shame? What are you talking about, we've successfully destroyed the entire country's infrastructure without rebuilding it, killed over 8000 civilians, and have been unable to pacify the ongoing resistance.

[AutoJC]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Well, I read it without reading the title, so it had a little surprise for me waiting in the middle. You'll find the Op-Ed here.

Read it?

Really?

Good.

I was surprised at how close the parallels between Iraq and Vietnam are thus far. We do have one advantage over the situation in Nam, at the moment, no strong Chinese or Soviet backing.

If we don't internationalize the effort but quick, we may be forced to permit internationalization as we retreat in shame and defeat. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the potential benefits of internationalization outweigh whatever potential harm there would be in giving up control.

BlackGriffen

The article you linked makes some interesting points, especially in regard to Vietnam.

Here's another interesting op-ed regarding Iraq.

Regarding internationalization, it has to come with the pitch that what needs to be vanquished in Iraq is truly an international threat to peace.

[MacGorilla]

Interesting article. Therer are parallels between the two conflicts but whether both will end the same is still up in the air.

[zigzag]

These, to me, are the most pertinent statements in the column:

"•_If you adopt a strategy of not just pre-emptive strike but also pre-emptive war, you own the aftermath. You better plan for it.

•_If you adopt the strategy of pre-emptive war, your intelligence must be not just "darn good," as the president has said; it must be "bulletproof," as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed the administration's was against Saddam Hussein. Anything short of that saps credibility.

•_In a democracy, instead of truth being the first casualty in war, it should be the first cause of war. It is the only way the Congress and the American people can cope with getting through it. As credibility is strained, support for the war and support for the troops go downhill. Continued loss of credibility drains troop morale, the media become more suspicious, the public becomes more incredulous and Congress is reduced to hearings and investigations."


These are some of the reasons that someone like myself, who supported the idea of deposing Saddam, has been disappointed in the administration. Of course, it's too early to judge the ultimate success of the operation.

I've avoided making comparisons to Vietnam because it seemed too facile and we shouldn't be forever crippled by that experience. But whether or not the action on the ground is like that in Vietnam, the effects at home can be similar - political deceit, mistrust, divisiveness, deficit spending, high interest rates, etc. I grew up during Vietnam and it was a very grim time. And as McNamara himself would tell you, the anti-war protesters were mostly right.

Terrorism is the new Communism. I believe in combatting it, but let's do it right. In the case of Iraq, I'm still hoping for the best, but I worry that the administration has made some serious blunders. Let's hope that they're not fatal and that things work out in the long run.

[thunderous_funker]

I like this one entitledThe Quagmire of Denouncing a "Quagmire"

But here's a revealing fact: In early 1968, the Boston Globe conducted a survey of 39 major U.S. daily newspapers and found that not a single one had editorialized in favor of U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam. While millions of Americans were demanding an immediate pullout, such a concept was still viewed as extremely unrealistic by the editorial boards of big daily papers -- including the liberal New York Times and Washington Post.

Yes, some editorials fretted about a quagmire. But the emphasis was on developing a winnable strategy -- not ending the war. Pull out the U.S. troops? The idea was unthinkable.

[mr. natural]

Posted by zigzag:

"In a democracy, instead of truth being the first casualty in war, it should be the first cause of war. It is the only way the Congress and the American people can cope with getting through it. As credibility is strained, support for the war and support for the troops go downhill. Continued loss of credibility drains troop morale, the media become more suspicious, the public becomes more incredulous and Congress is reduced to hearings and investigations."

These are some of the reasons that someone like myself, who supported the idea of deposing Saddam, has been disappointed in the administration.

zigzag, forgive me but I'm trying to reconcile you saying (in the Clark thread) that as "realist":

I don't expect either party to do anything radical, and I would be the last to suggest that any of them are honest.

Perhaps this all misplaced but I can't help but wonder about such sentiments; especially as they seem to be part & parcel of a general public acceptance of politics that strikes me as downright cynical -- and not one that I care to agree with at all; but of course, I'm forever the starry eyed idealist.

Nevertheless, my questions are:

1. Is it truly that "radical" (far-fetched) to not just expect but insist upon *honesty* and straight talk from our Government and the candidates we elect to government?
1a. And especially so when it comes to war?
(Not the hedges, fudges, dodges, innuendoes, and imprecise loopholed statements from our President like: "I can't make that claim," about the otherwise heavily implied reasons for war, etc.)

2. If such a political POV (i.e., your so called "realism"?) is to be believed or accepted as *just the way it is*, how is it that you could be at all "disappointed" in this administration?
2a. After all, they did *depose Saddam,* the "idea" of which you supported.

3. Is it by way of all the dubious allegations to justify this action that now bothers you, or is there more, since the war began, to your *disappointment.*

4. If it is primarily the lack of up-front *honesty* about the reasons for this war in Iraq now that bothers you (as it did me from the get go), doesn't this suggest that you too harbor simple yet *realistic* ideals (like *honesty* about such profound matters as war - which are in no way at all *radical*) that we should *insistently demand* from our government and the folks we elect?

5. Ultimately, isn't this the "realistic" stance to take if we are to ever hope to change our politics and public discourse for the better?

It just seems to me, starry-eyed idealist that I am, that to always accept - and to do so somewhat cynically as you appear to do - half a loaf politically is to always end up with much less than that even.

If there is one thing I grudgingly have to admire about Bush is that he consistently yet, albeit from my progressive POV, badly shoots for and often hits the moon! No thanks to congress shaped the way it is, and I guess this is what one calls being *realistic.*

Me, I just call it what it truly is: pathetic.

[edited for grammtical error.]

[mr. natural]

Posted by zigzag:

Terrorism is the new Communism. I believe in combatting it, but let's do it right.

Sorry, I forgot to ask above, would you care to elaborate on this idea of how to "do it right"?

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Terrorism is the new Communism.

Yes the US did very well for itself during the Cold War.

So here's to the terrorists and America's continued global dominance!

[zigzag]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
zigzag, forgive me but I'm trying to reconcile you saying (in the Clark thread) that as "realist": . . .

In response to that and your other questions, I would say that I anticipate and can tolerate a certain amount of spin in the political arena, but even a cynic like myself has limits. It depends on the degree of spin and the gravity of the subject matter.

I've been following politics as an adult since the '72 primaries and election. I learned rather quickly that counting on complete honesty from any politician is a sure recipe for disappointment. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for it or demand it, only that it doesn't pay to get upset about every exaggeration or deceit engaged in by politicians. If you do, you'll never sleep and will probably go insane.

I don't regard a desire for 100% complete honesty as "radical," but I do regard it as unrealistic. Hell, it's unrealistic to expect it in everyday life, much less the political arena.

In this particular case, I felt and said from the start that the administration was exaggerating the threat of WMD as a means to sell the idea of an invasion sooner rather than later. It seemed self-evident to me then and is even more apparent now. Nonetheless, I could fathom a variety of reasons to forcibly depose Hussein, one of which was a long-term threat of WMD if not a near-term threat. I felt that the administration also had a variety of reasons, but that the WMD threat was the one they chose as a selling point (Wolfowitz admitted this in one infamous interview). Did I like the WMD spin? No - I made a number of posts stating that I'd prefer that the administration be more forthright. But was I going to reject the entire concept because the administration was spinning it differently than I might? No.

[Note that I believed that the administration was acting hastily and had trouble with the idea that an invasion was needed at that particular time. I was uncertain but generally in favor of allowing more time for inspections. I said at the time that it appeared that the administration was determined to proceed no matter what and that the rest was for show, and I think I was right. So, although I could fathom a number of reasons for forcibly deposing Saddam, I didn't necessarily agree with the administration's choices.]

If I'm more disappointed now than I was then, it's mostly because I figured that, whatever spin the administration was putting on the WMD issue, it at least had sound intelligence and a sound post-battle plan. It now appears that I might have given them more credit in this respect than they deserved. Whether that's a matter of incompetence or dishonesty, I'm still not sure - probably some of each. I also know a bit more now than I did then about the diplomatic issues, which is an added source of disappointment. Again, however, I'm not yet sure how much of this is due to dishonesty and how much is due to poor judgment. Probably some of each.

I agree with you that we have a right to expect honesty, I'm just not as surprised when we don't get it. If this means that I'm letting them off too easily, I'm not sure what to tell you - I make the best judgments I can based on my experiences.

Hope that answers your questions. It's pretty late so I'm not sure if I'm being clear.

[MacGorilla]

The planning the war and the invasion were brilliantly executed, no doubt. Its the occupation that seems to have a decided lack of thought. False assumptions:

1. Iraq's oil revenues would help pay for reconstruction. Reality: Iraq's oil infrastructure is baddly degraded and will take billions to get up to speed, all this admist sabatoge.

2. Iraq's infrastructure (water, grid) are in good shape. Reality: Like the oil system, the infastructure is also baddly degraded and the subject of sabatoge.

3. Iraqis will welcome us will open arms. Reality: Iraqis are viewing us with suspicion and hostility, which will only increase as time passes and no percieved progress is made.

4. Iraq's army will help stabillize the country. Reality: First, Iraq's army did not surrender in mass, most simply ditched their uniforms and melted away. Those that did surrender found themselves first unemplyed when the coalition disbanded the army and now some are rehired but there is no chain of command or structure. In additon those that are serving with the US are seen as collaborators and are getting shot or blown up.

Iraq can be rebuilt but the Administration needs to swallow its pride and ask for international assistance, They need it. The UN is good at this sort of thing, they need to be brought in.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Sorry, I forgot to ask above, would you care to elaborate on this idea of how to "do it right"?

I'm not that smart. I can only say that in this case the administration appears to have made some poor choices. The decision to invade is one that I reserve judgment on - it's too soon to tell whether it will pay off. I'm referring to the post-battle planning, the timing, and the diplomatic measures, as well as the dubious rhetoric. Any one of them might be overlooked, but taken in combination they're raise serious doubts about the administration's judgment and competence, not to mention its honesty. But there's a lot of water yet to go under the bridge.

If you're looking for me to stomp my feet and yell and scream and condemn the whole lot to hell, I'm not going to do that, at least not yet. Life is complicated and I'm smart enough to know that I'm not that smart.

[mr. natural]

zigzag, thanks for the reply.

Posted by zigzag:

I would say that I anticipate and can tolerate a certain amount of spin in the political arena, but even a cynic like myself has limits. It depends on the degree of spin and the gravity of the subject matter.

I too can "tolerate a certain amount of spin." But when it involves sending American citizens overseas to War, especially one as dubiously *necessary* as this one, I'd say this is the ultimate *grave* instance, and deserving of complete transparency & honesty. Hence my *limit* was reached as soon as this was broached, precisely because I didn't buy the alleged *reasoning* why this was necessary NOW. (Not with Osama bin Laden on the run - but now we've all but forgotten all about him; but I think he'll tragically remind us again who he is and why we still need to reckon with him. )

I can only say that in this case the administration appears to have made some poor choices.

Yeah, that is one way to look at it.

The decision to invade is one that I reserve judgment on - it's too soon to tell whether it will pay off. I'm referring to the post-battle planning, the timing, and the diplomatic measures, as well as the dubious rhetoric. Any one of them might be overlooked, but taken in combination they're raise serious doubts about the administration's judgment and competence, not to mention its honesty. But there's a lot of water yet to go under the bridge.

I think you're being really lenient here.

So, forgive my hyperbole, but just how many mangled and dead bodies under the bridge (never mind $) will it take before you might change your mind?

I for one expect that it will be a lot more before this gambit pays off. Thankfully, I don't have any children of military age to worry about while we wait and see if this ever does pay off. But there are a lot of folks with military membership who are damned worried right now, and I feel especially sorry for them. (And apart from my sympathy, no real or worthwhile sacrifice has been asked of us, except maybe to shop for flags and pay the bill. ) How long will we have to wait and see what is really required?

If you're looking for me to stomp my feet and yell and scream and condemn the whole lot to hell, I'm not going to do that, at least not yet. Life is complicated and I'm smart enough to know that I'm not that smart.

No, I'm not expecting any hysterics, but I certainly expect better of us, i.e., We The People, to hold our government officials to task when it comes to such Life & Death decisions.

And so far, in my book, this presidential administration (and just about everyone in Congress) have a lot of strikes against it.

I also think there were some options other than just War that we could of, and should of been introspective about when it comes to this whole *War on Terrorism.* But that would of required of us some real & honest leadership. Realistically, which is to say tragically, I recognize that isn't our FUBARed deck of political cards of late.

Still, it is no reason to give up hope for such a possibility. Or even to demand it no matter the odds against seeing it come to pass in one's lifetime. Otherwise, we resign ourselves to always accepting *the way it is.* And that is one thing I do not accept.

Nor, starry eyed American born & bred idealist that I am, was it something that our Tea Party colonists and plenty of other folks along the line accepted.

Forgive me, but I hate it that we are just a bunch of dead men cynically walking deeper and deeper into greater political and social chaos.

Time, sooner than later, will tell if I'm wrong. But *realistically* we got a whole heap of troubles before us that we aren't dealing with at all well.

[Edited to change an emphasis form mythical beings, i.e., Founding Fathers, to the real people who got the ball rolling.]

[zigzag]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
I too can "tolerate a certain amount of spin." But when it involves sending American citizens overseas to War, especially one as dubiously *necessary* as this one, I'd say this is the ultimate *grave* instance, and deserving of complete transparency & honesty. Hence my *limit* was reached as soon as this was broached, precisely because I didn't buy the alleged *reasoning* why this was necessary NOW . . . .

[snip]

. . . Nor, starry eyed American born & bred idealist that I am, was it something that our Tea Party colonists and plenty of other folks along the line accepted.

That I would doubt, in the sense that I don't think human nature or politics has changed in 300 years. We're used to hearing about the noble side of Jefferson et al., but my impression is that they were political creatures like any others, with closets full of skeletons, not unlike those of our era. That's not to say that they didn't do some great, noble things, only that it's a matter of perspective. They were still men.

Avid Bush supporters would probably say that, in taking such great risks in response to 9/11, he has shown himself to be a man of courage, conviction, action, idealism, and noble purpose, doing what no one else was prepared to do. I've been skeptical and even critical of many of his decisions but I've also had to allow for the possibility that he could prove correct in the long run - if things work out, he might actually be remembered as the man who changed the face of the Middle East, for the better. It's too soon to tell how things will end up - he might also be remembered as a complete failure. You're assuming the latter, I'm not prepared to.

I've also lived long enough to know that adults, and political leaders especially, have to make difficult decisions and that sometimes they make the wrong ones. I'm not inclined to condemn them for their mistakes as long as I feel that they're acting in good faith. I think Bush is a sneaky politician like any other but I nonetheless think that he honestly believes that he's doing the right thing - I don't think he would take such grave risks if he didn't.

Everyone talks about what a straight-talking, noble guy Truman was. Well, Truman ordered the instantaneous killing of a hundred thousand people and used some dubious rhetoric to justify it. We'll never know if the bombs actually saved millions of American lives - Truman was certainly speculating and probably exaggerating. But I'm nonetheless able to consider that he acted in good faith and that the long-term results were for the best. Tough, big-picture decisions.

Look at Churchill. An uneven record early on, and definitely a political creature, but now widely regarded as the pre-eminent leader of the 20th Century. I'm no authority but I suspect there's a good chance he would approve of Bush's strategy.

Look at Lincoln. He suspended habeus corpus, among other things, went through half a dozen commanders, and sent hundreds of thousands of men to their deaths, not to abolish slavery (which, however, was a happy consequence) but to preserve the Union. Change a few battles and he could have lost. We now idolize him.

We were not, of course, under direct threat from Iraq, so those examples aren't meant to be analogous, they're just meant to illustrate that tough decisions have to be made and that we can't always be sure that they're right until later. Vietnam, of course, was one of the bad ones.

As for mangled and dead bodies, I'm concerned as well but are we yet in a position to know whether there will be fewer in the long run as a result? Bush supporters would reasonably ask: "What about mangled and dead Iraqi citizens under Hussein? Who's the real idealist here?"

My own view, as I've said, is that Bush et al. appear to have made some serious blunders (but have also had some serious successes). I've had my fears and doubts and have expressed them, have consistently complained about the rhetoric, and probably would've chosen a different course. So it's not as though I don't appreciate your views, and I absolutely agree that we should try to keep our leaders honest, especially in connection with an event like this. I'm just not prepared to dismiss the entire enterprise even though I object to some aspects of it - I've been around long enough to know that I can be wrong.

[mr. natural]

Posted byzigzag:

Avid Bush supporters would probably say that, in taking such great risks in response to 9/11, he has shown himself to be a man of courage, conviction, action, idealism, and noble purpose, doing what no one else was prepared to do. I've been skeptical and even critical of many of his decisions but I've also had to allow for the possibility that he could prove correct in the long run - if things work out, he might actually be remembered as the man who changed the face of the Middle East, for the better. It's too soon to tell how things will end up - he might also be remembered as a complete failure. You're assuming the latter, I'm not prepared to.

You're right. I assume the latter because I'm old enough to know that when the reasons for War - not one of necessity but dubious choice - as this one is are shown to be terribly misconstrued, American public support for the War and the administration leading the war sours. Soured public opinion leads to home front acrimony and an increase in slackening of support for the War, which eventually leads to failure.

Whether by the administration which started the War or another that has taken its place, the end result is the same. And although this is not exactly Vietnam, in that there is an alignment with England in this War, Tony Blair's home support over this issue is worse than Bush's; so if he goes down and a new British government backtracks on their coalition support, we'll really be up the creek without a paddle; the only hope here is to manage to get the UN involved, but this doesn't actually assure success either.

If the "avid Bush supporters" err it is on the *assumption* that this grand gambit without precedent in history will succeed. I readily admit to erring on the *assumption* that failure is more than likely because historically this has been the rule.

One of my historical political rule of thumbs is that one can not *recklessly* impose a new political order on anyone; success in these matters needs to be homegrown - as is slowly happening in Iran.

I also think it worthwhile to recall what G.H.W.Bush wrote in his memoir, "A World Transformed":

Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.

This was published five years ago. Now I've heard some folks claim that this venture could take as long as ten years, but as G.W.H.Bush was aware, this just won't cut it no matter how you slice it.

So, from my perspective, we've gotten ourselves into a situation in "a bitterly hostile land," from which we have no viable "exit strategy" except to hold the fort. To which I say, even though the Alamo was close to home we still got overrun. But now we are talking about holding (or more accurately: *occupying*) not just the fort but an entire country many more thousands of miles away from home in the heart of the "bitterly hostile" middle east "geographic base" of terrorists who are willing to strap bombs to their bodies, or otherwise do all they can to ensure we fail.

I've already done the calculus (as did G.H.W.Bush) and it doesn't readily add up to success. It will take a miracle (if not a lot of them) and I don't readily believe such an offering is in the cards from such a FUBARed beginning.

Furthermore, I'm also old enough to know that when our own home economics are in such dire straits (i.e., the *jobless* recovery), American public support for the administration in charge also sours.

To ask to spend vast sums of our money overseas in a dubious and slackening supported War venture, while folks are hurting at home, is a sure fire recipe for political disaster at home and abroad.

Of course it is possible the economy could perk up for a spell, but the long range outlook under this administration is not good at all; and sooner than later they will pay for it. But of what ultimate good is it to us that we might install a pseudo *democracy* overseas if we mortgage our future at home in the effort? We will be a vastly diminished and weakened country, and the gordian knot that is the middle east will likely still be just that.

I suggest that for all of Bush's alleged "courage, conviction, action, idealism, and noble purpose, doing what no one else was prepared to do," we all would have been better served had he directed the country not into a dubious War overseas to try and change the dynamics of the middle east, but rather to change the way we use and generate *energy* here at home.

The two years since 9/11 could of been two years closer to energy/economic independence of middle east oil and all the political ramifications this oil addiction brings. All the money being spent on War could of been better spent making us less vulnerable to the oil soaked life-line suicidal fanatics are willing to try and ignite. Money now wasted overseas is money we haven't better spent here at home providing for the only real security we can count on of self-sustainable & independent energy and economic needs at home.

Staying involved in the middle east on the oil soaked energy/economic grounds that we are presently tied to is IMHO a complete failure of leadership.

And I definitely assume history will prove me correct in my assumptions.

The real tragedy is that we'll just have to wait and see.

[zigzag]

Believe it or not, I pretty much agree with you. I also endorsed this piece that thunderous posted a while back (recognizing that it's an opinion piece and that a rebuttal would be useful): http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200309...-into-war.html

The difference is that I'm just somewhat more willing to allow for the possibility that it could work out. This is partly because I'm not 100% confident in my own political judgment and partly because, well, the deed's been done and we have to make the best of it. Might sound simplistic or fatalistic or whatever but that's how I see it.

[moki]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
If we don't internationalize the effort but quick, we may be forced to permit internationalization as we retreat in shame and defeat. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the potential benefits of internationalization outweigh whatever potential harm there would be in giving up control.

I think this is a bit silly. First, not having the backing of the Soviet Union and China are no small things.

Second, Vietnam was not a military failure, it was a political failure. If you want to see Iraq through to completion, support the troops, and support the President.

If you want to turn it into a Vietnam-style failure of political will, then by all means, undermine what is being done in Iraq.

[moki]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
Iraq can be rebuilt but the Administration needs to swallow its pride and ask for international assistance, They need it. The UN is good at this sort of thing, they need to be brought in.

I agree completely. The UN is good at this sort of thing, and I think the most important thing is a stable and prosperous Iraq. I could care less about the administration's pride.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by moki:
I think this is a bit silly. First, not having the backing of the Soviet Union and China are no small things.

Second, Vietnam was not a military failure, it was a political failure. If you want to see Iraq through to completion, support the troops, and support the President.

If you want to turn it into a Vietnam-style failure of political will, then by all means, undermine what is being done in Iraq.

I understand that this is a 'must not lose' situation. I will not and do not provide unconditional support to anyone, let alone the President.

There are lots of things that contributed to our failure in Vietnam. The least of which was the support of China and the USSR. Here are a few:

• The regime in South Vietnam was corrupt.
• The public face of war changed (compare the number of gruesome images put forth for public consumption during WWI and WWII and Vietnam some time)
• There was no compelling national interest, just the insistence that we uphold an absolutist doctrine.
• Too deep a meddling by politicians in the operations (including target and objective selection).
• An inability to invade the North for fear of broadening the war.

In spite of all of the above the most damaging thing to the war effort was the army itself. Through continued blunders and misapplication of the tools of war, we managed to turn village after village of Vietnamese people in to enemies. We gave them a deadly will to fight us. Combine that will with the fact that they had nowhere else to go, and we couldn't possibly have won any kind of meaningful victory.

My great fear is that we will do the same in Iraq. Evidence suggests that we did start going down that path (net reading of many news stories), but it is not too late to do it right. The UN has a lot of experience with this sort of stuff.

I support the troops, they had to follow bad orders to go in, and now they cannot leave. Even if international troops provide some relief, there will still be a significant American contingent there for a long time.

The President who put them there under these circumstances, though, I will not support, and will indeed oppose.

BlackGriffen

[mr. natural]

I found this NYTimes op-ed yesterday (sept.22) by Robert A. Pape, Dying to Kill Us interesting, especially as his conclusion mirrors my thinking as expressed above and elsewhere on this subject.

In the end, the best approach for the states under [terrorist] fire is probably to focus on their own domestic security while doing what they can to see that the least militant forces on the terrorists' side build a viable state on their own...

For the United States, especially in light of its growing occupation of the Persian Gulf, it is crucial to immediately step up border and immigration controls. In the medium term, Washington should abandon its visions of empire and allow the United Nations to take over the political and economic institutions in Iraq. And in the long run, America must move toward energy independence, reducing the need for troops in the Persian Gulf. Even if our intentions in Iraq are good, our presence there will continue to help terrorist groups recruit more people willing to blow themselves up in the war against America.

But this would require some real leadership, introspection, and vision. Oh well.