August 09, 2004

• I fully support linking to "print this article" links wherever possible. That etiquette point covered, please carry on, chaps and chapettes.
• I think this article might also contribute. Towards the end it talks about the difficulties dealing with the populace, one which the US doesn't seem to know.
• OT: The new and improved RSS feed I just noticed is just what the doctor ordered, thanks :)
• When I connect to that site, I get a cam view straight up Saddam's "ass". I mean "date". I mean "updated every 3 seconds"! I mean "beard"! K3wl! But some fucker's squatting my account!
• In general, I find Ritter to be a less than credible read, with his tendency toward defeatism and penchant for 'in your face' hyperbole. He's a blowhard and a whiner at the same time, a not especially endearing combination. That said, this article has some good poins. I think it's obvious that the Administration assumed that, once the head was chopped off the Iraqi snake, the populace who, demonstrably, had been viciously oppressed for decades would come to life, welcome us as conquering heroes, and get to the business of forming a democracy. I am guilty as well of that vanity, and it stems from arrogance and optimism: arrogance, that we belived Hussein to be of the same stripe as most dictators (to wit: petty, violent, prne to passions and in it for the money) and optimistic, in that we failed to take into account that Nationalism plus Islam could lead to (at least in our eyes) Perversity. I do not, however, concur with Ritter's typical fatalism. Assuredly, we will be in Iraq for a while, and it will continue to be a money-pit for the next presidential term, probably two. The WMD issue will certainly haunt Bush during the election, as well as the continuing missteps of Cheney (Halliburton, etc) and Rumsfeld (who, ultimately, ought to have been far more likely to lose his position over Iraq than Bush, although both will sink together come November if that's in the cards). But I think that people underestimate Bush's foreign policy; in the run-up to Iraq, he (deftly, in my opinion) checkmated the UN on the matter of the Hussein's violating their missives, and he's re-courting them to return to Iraq; he bested critics on the handover of sovereignty to Allawi, spurring sour-grapesian but febrile charges of puppetmaster. Indeed, for every coup, there are twice as many fungoes, but Bush has shown a pattern of taking advantage of people misunderestimating him, and he has efficient and capable (if unpalatable) people on his various staffs. In the end, the eventual condition of Iraq neither started with Bush nor will end with him; however, I think a bit of historical, long-term perspective is in order here - it took 10 years for America to lose Vietnam, the French nearly another 20 before that. We have been in Iraq for just over a year, iirc. It is far FAR too early to be calling it a defeat yet.
• Thing is, Fes, that taking the long term view on Iraq can yield a multitude of reasonable and not so reasonable predicitions. Unfortunately, we both agree that the US will be in Iraq for a long time. As you note, the US evaded the UN, and was able to go into Iraq unilaterally. However, this is not a foreign policy win in sense of the word. I think that the US is being counter played by the UN. The US is being offered _just enough_ encouragement, with the possibility of UN troops, to continue to stay in Iraq. Keeping the US in Iraq is, at this point, definitely in the best military interests of China, and possibly Russia. I doubt the French are too upset either. It soaks up massive amounts of resources, is destroying equipment at an unprecedented rate and has the US pinned down for the forseeable future. Plus it gives China a good look at US SOPs and equipment capabilities. I think the US got played, and a lot of unpleasant countries and regimes can't believe their luck.
• The US and Britain understood lots about WMDs in Iraq.
• Re the administration "checkmating" the U.N. on Hussein before GWII, I think you'll find most international law scholars disagreeing with you, Fez.