I should clarify. I see that attitude on blogs. Not blogs of the right describing the left, but blogs of the left. It's not a sentiment that's shared by all, but it does seem to have quite a following behind it.

I repeat...OMG it's in a blog, it must be true!!

Liberals do this blah blah blah blah. Conservatives do this blah blah blah blah. How pointless is it to spend our time blaming the "other" belief system. What have we become, the Hutus and Tutsis? What's next?


Isn't there some leader out there who would like to attempt to bridge the gap and move things forward in a POSITIVE direction for once? Not just a leader who is adept at lipservice, but someone with real effectiveness.

I have too much disgust with the blame game to muddle through and look for someone.

Leo, none of what you point out (which I don't necessarily disagree with) changes the fact that in that climate, history has shown a 0% chance of success. Every attempt has resulted in a paralell move (either to a new dicatator or to open civil war). So what good has been done by attempting? Especially making an attempt like this one in Iraq where more and more of the those that were part of the planning of the initial invasion are revealing that no one had done their research and they had absolutely no clue what kind of enemy they were facing. Doomed from the start.

And none of THAT changes the fact that, whether you want to believe there was some sort of WMD/UN resolution-based justification for going in or not, the "liberating Iraq" angle is nothing but pure spin from the administration. It was never part of their pre-war thought process, it was a total after thought, at best a "I guess that'll be a nice side effect," as evidenced by their complete failure to consider what it would mean to actually try to build a viable nation. They weren't unprepaired because they didn't understand what they needed to do...the were unprepaired because they didn't give a rat's ass what they needed to do.

Would you make the same unsuccessful claims in Afghanistan? While I'm not particularly proud of the likely execution of a man for converting to Christianity, there is a functioning and democratic government in place. We went in and took out the ruling Taliban and have established something that's going pretty well and is certainly not a failure.

I guess I have never understood the spin accusation of the "liberating Iraq" angle. In all of the discussions of getting rid of Saddam due to WMD, doesn't that in and of itself imply a new government? And presumably one that would not be oppressive? Granted, the administration was not saying "liberate Iraq". They were saying "get rid of Saddam". I guess I see that as equivalent, unless the presumption is that an equally evil leader is put in place.

I do not think the Iraqi situation can be described as a failure. Three years is not a long time when you think of all that has to be and has been done. I would point out, and again not to equate WWII with Iraq, but the establishment of functioning governments free from insurgents took much longer than three years in Germany and Japan. However, it was well worth it.

It's what we do, Leo. Give us a muddy pen and some slop and we'll happily frolic for hours.

I seem to recall the US having quite a bit of help from the outset in defeating the Taliban from armed, organized Afghanis who opposed the Taliban. It's true without our help they were not likely to be successful in that goal, but they were there, motivated. Whereas in Iraq, even now, AFTER Sadaams gone, with us providing the weapons and the training, we can't pull together an organized military or police force. Big difference.

And what is with this constantly repeated crap about how long it took for Germany and Japan to rebound after WWII. Did we occupy either of those countries for 3 years?



How about we all refrain from using analogies for 4 pages or so, and just talk about what we are talking about?





By the way, Kabul has a democratic government. The rest of Afghanistan is drug warload feudalism, as it's always been.

Ummm...yeah. We actually still have troops in each of those countries.

Edited to add: Sarcasm aside, we had an active occupation in Japan until at least 1951, when it was scaled back. I do not recall the length of the active occupation of Germany, but we had an active military presence there that was never scaled back due to the rise of the USSR. How much of that was due to the needs of Germany and how much was due to the USSR I cannot say.

(sigh)
At the risk of repeating myself, if you truly desire not to attack people, stop instructing those who disagree with you to "crack open a textbook."