bucy wrote:

The wisest course for journalists might be to begin sustained investigations of why leading Democrats have failed so miserably to challenge the US occupation of Iraq. The first step, of course, is to establish as conventional wisdom the fact that the war was never in the US interest and has not become so. It is such an obvious case to make that I find it difficult to believe many pundits and political leaders have not already made it repeatedly.

A year or two ago, my sentiment about the Iraq war was something like "I'd like to know the real reason why we invaded since its come to light that the WMDs aren't there." Now, I don't think there ever was a "real reason" ... it was just a total policy fuckup. A bunch of folks -- CIA, neocons, oil, etc, sat down and each told a different story but they all ended with "overthrow Saddam Hussein." So we went and did it. It took 3 weeks and minimal casualties.

The problem is that historically, "Iraq" doesn't exist. The administration's commitment to a "one state solution" doomed the whole thing from the start. For example, there probably ought to be a free and independent Kurdistan. That would absorb some of Turkey. Oops.

The reason for the invasion has always been clear and very simple. They just never told you what it was truthfully. The idea is that by overthrowing Iraq, a nation that is (was?) already the most liberal and progressive state in the middle east, would establish a very westernized culture within the arab world. By doing this, they would be able to spread the democracy, capitalism, and western values memes into the arab world. What's driving Al Q and other Islamic fundamentalist cells is poverty, lack of opportunity, and boredom for young males. Put them in an environment where they are on the capitalist treadmill and they're going to cause a lot less trouble. Of course, this theory might be flawed, since it doesn't work at all with Christian fundamentalists.

If it did work, then Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and even Pakistan would all have to marvel at their neighbor and how rich, happy, and successful they'd be. They would clearly benefit from being an 'ally' of the US, and probably a huge trading partner. Who knows. Maybe the US would even allow Iraq to build nukular reactors or have a space program.

Granted, the execution of this strategy has been abysmal. So it doesn't matter how great the strategy would've been, it's been a complete fuck up on the ground. I agree that you are creating another Israel by forcing rival factions to co-exist within the same nation-state, especially without giving them equal representation in the government. In any case, the truth is not being reported and the execution deserves impeachment for incompetence.

RE: Nieman Watchdog - What’s wrong with cutting and running?