Matthew Yglesias (October 31, 2007) - Time Heals All Wounds (Foreign Policy)

Yup.

Posted by Petey | October 31, 2007 12:36 PM

If we keep over 130,000 troops there for another eighteen months, and then tens of thousands of troops for years after that, the situation could well become peaceful and the whole sorry enterprise could be branded a success.

One of the reasons hideous wars are often memorialized so positively in human memory is that the biggest losers in war, the dead people, aren't around to vote, so to speak, on the final verdict. History has a built-in selection error in favor of war.

Posted by Dan Kervick | October 31, 2007 12:42 PM

What exactly is "peaceful" supposed to mean in this context-having an effective central government that keeps order by rule of law? Is Somalia or Afghanistan "peaceful" by Doherty's definition?

Reading the article, I get the sense that by "peaceful," Doherty means "US casualties at a low enough level that they're not a PR liability to the GOP," which seems to set a rather low bar for peacefulness.

Posted by James Gary | October 31, 2007 12:43 PM

The next Johns Hopkins mortality study is likely to show somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.5 million dead Iraqis over and above what would have existed during the Saddam era. The US currency is weaker, oil is higher, and Russia is resurgent. We've borrowed the entire cost of the war and must pay it off when we should be dealing with future problems X, Y, and Z. All of this will still be true in the long term so it's going to take some serious cherry picking to make the Iraq War look like a success. If Hillary Clinton is our 44th president she'll look like Nixon looked in relation to Vietnam, not like any kind of victor. The Iraq War is a steaming turd on a plate. Future historians can garnish the plate with a cherry tomato and parsley but let's not pretend turd on a plate is ever going to be an appealing dish because it's just not. Ever.

Posted by joejoejoe | October 31, 2007 12:44 PM

"if the Democrats nominate a candidate who disavows the war, and that candidate wins, the Official Story will deem the war a failure"

matt, matt, matt. you poor naive nebbish.

if a democratic dove wins, and peace breaks out all over iraq, there will still be something to find fault with. iraq won't be a democracy. or it won't let us keep the megabases. or it will renege on the shotgun contracts for the oil companies.

it doesn't matter--something will be slightly wrong.

and that will be enough to set the Official Story in stone:

everything was coming up ponies and perfection until the insidious democrat peacenik muslim-lover betrayed our brave troops and created the genocidal chaos in iraq.

you really don't see that one coming? you really were born yesterday?

Posted by kid bitzer | October 31, 2007 12:51 PM

Internecine warfare in Vietnam while horrific in scale over the medium term (boat people anyone?) has now settled out yet I see no sense at all that the American people see the Vietnam War as any kind of success. No one I know who lived through the sixties and still less those who actually served seems willing to buy into the "Time Heals all Wounds" narrative. Christ this country hasn't really gotten past the Civil War.

Last I heard there wasn't a big movement to tear down every Civil War Memorial and the Vietnam War Wall in DC, people in the Beltway may be willing to let bygones be bygones, the kids who ask why Uncle Bill can't come over to play anymore because he spends all his time underground at the Military Cemetery may not be so willing to forget and forgive.

Which has been the problem from day one. DC elites, despite mouth support of the troops, discounted soldier deaths to zero from the git-go. The small towns and cities don't forget.

Posted by Bruce Webb | October 31, 2007 12:51 PM

If we keep over 130,000 troops there for another eighteen months, and then tens of thousands of troops for years after that, the situation could well become peaceful and the whole sorry enterprise could be branded a success.

Gosh, I hate to ruin the party, but what would be so wrong with that? If a relatively good outcome is possible, why should we insist on a bad one? I grok the concept that it is important for progressives that Bush and his attendant ideologies not be rehabilitated. But that imperative should not outweigh the prospect that "the situation could well become peaceful," which would mean the preservation of countless Iraqi lives and US credibility.

Posted by southpaw | October 31, 2007 12:59 PM

In the long run, maybe the very long run, of course Iraq will be a success. It's hardly going to be pure chaos forever and ever.

But even though Vietnam is largely a success story today, even though the pullout from Vietnam happened under a pro-war President, the historical narrative isn't that Vietnam was a success, now is it?

Posted by Steve | October 31, 2007 1:01 PM

Iraq may someday come to be viewed as a success. After all, internecine violence in Iraq won't continue forever and since most ethnically mixed neighborhoods have already been cleansed, it's at least plausible that the worst is behind us. If we keep over 130,000 troops there for another eighteen months, and then tens of thousands of troops for years after that, the situation could well become peaceful and the whole sorry enterprise could be branded a success.

If that happens...poor you!

Except isn't that why you endorsed the war initially? Peace, success, and all that stuff? You thought it would be all that and a bag of chips, too?

Let's see: You endorsed the war, presumably rooting for an outcome just like this. You're not dumb enough to have believed victory would be quick, easy or bloodless. You're not dumb at all. So blood, death, civilian casualties and ethnic strife had to be part of your original calculation if your support meant anything.

Then, with time, you change positions. Fair enough; you're not the only one who did, and I would never suggest in your case that it was dishonorable.

But now, you note ruefully that the "whole sorry enterprise could be branded a success."

Going back to your original support of the war and the philosophy behind it...shouldn't you be rooting for "the whole sorry enterprise" to be "branded a success?"

Every meaningful military success this country has ever achieved has been an extremely painful one. WWII was an incredibly "sorry exercise." History has never properly paid tribute to the tens of thousands of American soldiers and the millions of European and Asian civilians who died because of blunders on scale against which the entire "sorry" Iraq enterprise amounts to, maybe, a bad week. The Civil War -- even more so. Lincoln, our greatest president, mismanaged the war for most of his presidency. If managing war was easy, we probably would have more of them, so thank God it isn't. War is horrible, even when it's necessary.

If history ultimately deems this war a success, that won't be the kind of ironic tragedy you depict here. It'll mean you were right in the first place. It'll mean the deaths in Iraq won't have been in completely in vain. Be glad and appreciate the geopolitical benefits that will result.

Posted by John S. | October 31, 2007 1:02 PM

"Rather, if the Democrats nominate an unapologetic war-supporter"

Of course they won't, since there aren't any such running - nothing like.

Posted by rilkefan | October 31, 2007 1:05 PM

John S. said it better than me.

Posted by southpaw | October 31, 2007 1:10 PM

History is written by the victors even a democracy

I beg to differ. Who won the Civil War? Yet how is the Civil War and, even more so, Reconstruction remembered? By whose narrative?

Of course, you could argue that the South won Reconstruction with the compromise of 1876.

Anyway, I suspect if an anti-war Dem. gets elected and withdrawls, he'll be blamed for loosing the war. Heck, they'll even make sure to blame Hillary Clinton.

Posted by DAS | October 31, 2007 1:14 PM

"Gosh, I hate to ruin the party, but what would be so wrong with that?"

it's a fair question, southpaw, and the answer is neither "that would be a catastrophe because then the iraqis would prosper" nor "that would be a catastrophe because then history might judge bush more kindly".

no, the answer is simply: that would be a catastrophe because it would make it harder for the country to learn the lesson it should learn.

doing stupid things usually turns out badly. doing stupid, dishonest, and illegal things is even more likely to turn out badly.

when somebody does them--when your 15-year old gets drunk, lies to you, steals your car, and goes out joy-riding--it's not like you positively hope they'll suffer the worst consequences. but at the same time, you really, really hope that they won't learn the wrong lesson from it.

because they will not keep being lucky every time.

so if the u.s. gets lucky this time: that's great!
even better for the iraqis, who have more to lose.

but if the u.s. decides to conclude that cheap wars fought illegally based on dishonest rationales are really fun and good for everyone, then we are going to reap a string of misery.

that's what would be so wrong with that.

Posted by kid bitzer | October 31, 2007 1:19 PM

I grok the concept that it is important for progressives that Bush and his attendant ideologies not be rehabilitated.

That's the point. It's not about about score keeping in some politically motivated way. If history remembers Bush as some sort of idealistic nation-building hero I'll shake me head and tell my children the real story, but what matters are the future policy consequences of a consensus view that our Iraqi escapades have been time, money, and blood well spent. I'm certain that Matt, as I do, hopes for a peaceful outcome in Iraq, but that it ends peacefully should not be taken as "success." "Success" pretends that we set a goal and went out and achieved it, with the reasonable insinuation that it was a worthwhile thing to do; that is not a healthy lesson to walk away with here.

Hooray for the United States, we can pick one country at a time, invade it, destroy its government and military, and leave 100K+ soldiers for the better part of a decade to act as policemen and get killed for no discernable reason secure in the knowledge that eventually shit will settle down!

Posted by Quarterican | October 31, 2007 1:24 PM

The point that Matt is trying to make is that the war clearly went badly compared to its original intentions, and by any reasonable cost-benefit calculation is still an unmitigated strategic disaster. However, 'patriotic' US historians may talk it up into a win. This is bad because a) it's not true, and b) will reinforce the pernicious idea that America always wins, and that any war that the American public feels like embarking on will turn out OK - which will lead to more horrifically pointless wars like this one.

Posted by Athlon | October 31, 2007 1:24 PM

The success of any political venture never occurs in a vacuum. Serbia's success in 1913 was overshadowed by the war it precipitated in 1914. It is averting the next war that the next POTUS must concern herself with, not the merits of this one. In 50 years the U.S. debacle in Iraq will be judged according to its affects in the region--this is the poison pill of Bush's strategy--the political destabilization of Iraq, Iran, and Turkey.

Posted by JC | October 31, 2007 1:24 PM

Iraq may someday come to be viewed as a success.

Yeah. And Hitler may someday be viewed as a statesman.

BTW: This ain't "someday." This is today.

Posted by McGruff | October 31, 2007 1:40 PM

I'm afraid that the story will reflect the wishes of the powerful. 1.5 million dead. About that many exiled. The factions segregated by force. Hey, look! fewer murders! the war is working!

What have we won with our win? And if we've won, can the troops come home?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 31, 2007 1:49 PM

I'd bet against the non-violent scenario. When you have an overhang of 2 million refugees, you have generated a very large pool of resentment and potential violence. The pool is larger than that generated in 1948 when the Palestinians fled Israel. In that case, the lag between fleeing and violence was about 20 years, but I think this is going to be a much faster cycle, especially with the Palestian model, and al qaeda, being so available to that mass of people.

Posted by roger | October 31, 2007 1:49 PM

In 50 years the U.S. debacle in Iraq will be judged according to its affects in the region--this is the poison pill of Bush's strategy--the political destabilization of Iraq, Iran, and Turkey.

I love your confident assessment of history 50 years from now.

no, the answer is simply: that would be a catastrophe because it would make it harder for the country to learn the lesson it should learn.

Thank you Yoda!

The commenters on this site do not lack for self-esteem, that's for sure. They know just what lessons "we" should learn, and how things will turn out decades from now. Oh, why do we have to wait a whole 15 months to turn the country over to your tender ministrations?

I won't accuse anyone on this site for calling Reagan or the other aggressive Cold War presidents "saber-rattlers" or for disagreeing with the premises of our side in the Cold War. I'm sure none of you believed we should not elevate our "system" above the Soviet Union's. No moral equivalency here, I'm sure.

But you sound just like them.

Posted by John S. | October 31, 2007 1:58 PM

the answer is simply: that would be a catastrophe because it would make it harder for the country to learn the lesson it should learn.

As I've said, I understand this and I find it unpersuasive. Learning the wrong lessons, i.e. moral hazard, is a real concern, but there are better palliative measures for the pernicious effects of moral hazard than ensuring a catastrophe.

Some disconnected thoughts:

Military commanders often blunder by fighting the last war. From what I can see, this moral hazard argument is a species of the opposite mistake. You're off fighting the next war. A good outcome in Iraq is a worthy end in itself.

Should we embrace an avoidable defeat to rig the political valences of a putative future conflict? Obviously I don't think so. But I'd also point out that the country is awfully squirrelly about learning the lessons you intend it to learn. The Vietnam debacle did not teach the US to abandon the policy of forcible communist containment; instead, it pushed those efforts into unsavory covert operations that shaped the unlovely political topography middle east of today.

Posted by southpaw | October 31, 2007 2:00 PM

But isn't it pretty clear that Clinton isn't an unapologetic war supporter?

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | October 31, 2007 2:01 PM

John S. writes:

Every meaningful military success this country has ever achieved has been an extremely painful one. WWII was an incredibly "sorry exercise." History has never properly paid tribute to the tens of thousands of American soldiers and the millions of European and Asian civilians who died because of blunders on scale against which the entire "sorry" Iraq enterprise amounts to, maybe, a bad week. The Civil War -- even more so. Lincoln, our greatest president, mismanaged the war for most of his presidency. If managing war was easy, we probably would have more of them, so thank God it isn't. War is horrible, even when it's necessary.

No, no, no and no. You can't be serious, comparing the Iraq war to "painful successes" like the Civil War and World War II.

This kind of drivel needs to be put in its place. All wars are horrible because they involve unspeakable carnage -- most of all the slaughter of innocents. That's why they should be viewed as LAST RESORTS. Was the Iraq War undertaken as a last resort? No, it was not. Now STFU.

When people start making excuses for the Iraq Debacle because hey, WWII was hard too, and when that's accepted as conventional wisdom, we've basically surrendered our reason.

Posted by Bill | October 31, 2007 2:02 PM

I'd bet against the non-violent scenario.

Oh, nonsense. If we reduce US troop deaths to the point where it's not an electoral liability in the 2008 election, the area is by definition "non-violent" and is guaranteed to stay that way until future historians judge the war to have be a success, which they no doubt will.

Posted by James Gary | October 31, 2007 2:04 PM

the end of my post above should read: "the unlovely political topography of the middle east today."

Posted by southpaw | October 31, 2007 2:06 PM

a great Brian Doherty column making the point that historical memory can play tricks on people and Iraq may someday come to be viewed as a success.
=================================================

I think the Korean War is probably your best example of this. Truman's job approval rating in March 1952 was 25%

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2003-12-26-approval-ratings_x.htm

This poll from October 1952 shows how the public felt about the War

"As things stand now, do you feel that the war in Korea has been worth fighting, or not?"

Worth fighting 32%
Not worth fighting 56%
No Opinion 12%

http://www.eisenhower.utexas.edu/Korea/documents/publidcopiniononthekoreanwar.html

People today forget how unpopular Truman was when he left office - worse than Bush is now. He tried to run in the 1952 election and withdrew after he lost the New Hampshire primary.

Today people generally have a favorable impression of Truman and he gets credit for implementing the beginnings of the containment strategy for the Cold War, desegregating the military, etc.

Also I would think the general public understands that the war was a stalemate, but one that allowed South Korea to emerge as a vigorous modern nation that has groped its way to its own form of democracy.

Compare that 1952 poll on whether the Korean War was worth it with this CBS News poll from two weeks ago

"Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?"

Right Thing 45%
Stayed Out 51%
Unsure 4%

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Do you think our historical memory of the Korean War is playing tricks on people?

Posted by Campesino | October 31, 2007 2:06 PM

southpaw posits:

A good outcome in Iraq is a worthy end in itself.

At what cost??? This kind of "analysis" is about a nanometer deep.

Should we embrace an avoidable defeat to rig the political valences of a putative future conflict? Obviously I don't think so.

That is not the fucking question and you know it. No one is "embracing defeat" except the straw man in your head.

But I'd also point out that the country is awfully squirrelly about learning the lessons you intend it to learn. The Vietnam debacle did not teach the US to abandon the policy of forcible communist containment; instead, it pushed those efforts into unsavory covert operations that shaped the unlovely political topography middle east of today.

What?! FYI the instigation of unsavory covert operations happens to predate the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War was part and parcel of an established foreign policy modus operandi. But whatever: what the hell is your point supposed to be? That it's futile to try and learn lessons from past mistakes?

Posted by Bill | October 31, 2007 2:11 PM

The war profiteers -- the oil industry and the defense contractors -- will deem the war a success no matter what happens, and in fact they're doing so now.

Chances are that this will become the dominant narrative -- just as it was true that Pinochet bringing blissful prosperity to Chile became the dominant narrative for many decades -- but things can change.

The bottom line is not what the dominant narrative is, but what the truth is. What's the truth? That a million died unneccesarily so that U.S. war profiteers could get richer. Hopefully that truth won't be forgotten, despite whatever narrative takes hold.

Posted by dubiousraves | October 31, 2007 2:14 PM

Southpaw and John S.:

Impressive posts.

It's interesting to see that some liberal pundits are already steeling themselves for possible success in Iraq. It's also interesting to see some of Matt's commenters dig in their heels and resist even thinking about the possibility of success in Iraq.

Matt has been ahead of the curve in attributing any near-term successes to anything but the actions of U.S. troops. He finds it more plausible to believe that they would be mocking deformed women or running over dogs than that they might be helping to stabilize Iraq. Perhaps this will work as a fall back position for war opponents on the left: acknowledge an eventual success, but refuse to attribute any of it to the American troops who are fighting to make it possible.

Posted by Fred | October 31, 2007 2:16 PM

A good outcome in Iraq is a worthy end in itself.

But the problem is, we can never have a "good outcome in Iraq." No matter what happens, Iraq will still be worse off than it would have been had we not invaded (because, you know, we're not going to bring the hundreds of thousands of dead people back to life), the U.S. will be worse off than if it had not invaded, and the war will have been unnecessary.

There's a separate point here, which is that conservatives are pointing to mass ethnic cleansing as a "good outcome." But in any case, if we decide that a debacle is worth it because it eventually ends, then any war, no matter how stupid and counter-productive, is "worth it."

Posted by M.A. | October 31, 2007 2:16 PM

"there are better palliative measures for the pernicious effects of moral hazard than ensuring a catastrophe"

um...agreed. completely.
so i'll make sure not to "ensure a catastrophe", not that it's in my power one way or another.

what are you talking about? do you think anyone here is arguing that we ought to take steps to "ensure a catastrophe"?
no one is arguing for that. everyone would agree that we should minimize the damage and contain the catastrophe that has already been unleashed.

but a catastrophe has already occurred. now we can do things to make it slightly bigger or smaller, or rather "we" can't, but the next administration can.

it is because the actual *outcome* of the war is not in our hands, i.e. the actual scale and scope of the catastrophe that has happened and is happening, that we are now discussing the lessons to be learned down the road.

also: what bill said.

Posted by kid bitzer | October 31, 2007 2:17 PM

Campesino:

Comparing the attitudes of people after the Korean War to those of people today is basically pointless. Yes, it's true, the passage of time can change people's perspectives. So what? The point is, are their any salient parallels between the Korean conflict and the Iraq invasion & occupation. I would submit that there really are not. Does one need to point out that the former came on the heels of an exhausting world war, that looked set to continue with one Giant Enemy being supplanted by another? That rather than an aggressive occupation of a foreign country, it was a defense of that country against foreign invasion? That its outcome of stalemate was deeply unsatisfying to an exhausted country recently victorious over Germany and Japan? Apples and oranges. Korea is not Iraq; Koreans are/were not Iraqis.

But as someone said, if people decide 50 years from now that Iraq was worth doing, that will be small comfort to the thousands if not millions of people who had to die to see it through -- largely because of the callous incompetence of people who can only pray that history carelessly exonerates them.

Posted by Bill | October 31, 2007 2:22 PM

Perhaps this will work as a fall back position for war opponents on the left: acknowledge an eventual success, but refuse to attribute any of it to the American troops who are fighting to make it possible.

Your problem is that you define "success" as an outcome that leaves America worse off than it was before we invaded. The whole point here is that a counter-productive war cannot be a "success" even if it eventually becomes less bad than it was at its very worst. And I don't understand why you celebrate America's failure as a success, or why you are dismissive of those of us who want to avoid similar failures (because an unnecessary war is by definition a failure).

And given that Saint Petraeus spent a large part of the year lying about casualties -- saying that Iraq was getting less violent when it wasn't -- it seems odd to attribute the current drop in violence to the surge. We've already seen that the surge was a failure (since if it wasn't failing, Petraeus wouldn't have found it necessary to lie about its success), so logically we should understand that there are other reasons for the September-October drop in violence.

Posted by M.A. | October 31, 2007 2:23 PM

Campesino,

Do you think if Truman had invaded North Korea without provocation, instead of responding to an invasion of South Korea by North Korea, that he would be remembered fondly today?

I doubt it. My prediction: a few extremist neocons will try to rehabilitate Bush and the Iraq war, but will fail. The mainstream verdict will be that it was an unmitigated disaster.

Posted by Jim W | October 31, 2007 2:23 PM

Lots of racists in Germany think WWII was worth it because, gosh, look how prosperous Germany is now.

Posted by dubiousraves | October 31, 2007 2:24 PM

Fred blathers:

It's interesting to see that some liberal pundits are already steeling themselves for possible success in Iraq. It's also interesting to see some of Matt's commenters dig in their heels and resist even thinking about the possibility of success in Iraq.

No, moron, they're steeling themselves for the possibility, no, inevitability, that "success" will be erroneously characterized by callous war apologists like you. You know what I'm talking about: lipstick on a pig.

Posted by Bill | October 31, 2007 2:26 PM

Bill,

That is not the fucking question and you know it. No one is "embracing defeat" except the straw man in your head.

I get the sense you and I are not going have much of a rational debate about this, but do read matt's post:

If we keep over 130,000 troops there for another eighteen months, and then tens of thousands of troops for years after that, the situation could well become peaceful and the whole sorry enterprise could be branded a success.

A peaceful situation is possible. It might be called a success. That strikes me as something less than an assertion of the inevitability of defeat. We can, it seems, get a peaceful situation and avoid defeat, as I read Matt's post. Now I asked, what would be so wrong with that (i.e. avoiding defeat) . . . and I got a reply:

the answer is simply: that would be a catastrophe because it would make it harder for the country to learn the lesson it should learn.

That seems to be saying we should not seek the peaceful situation Matt offers because that would to some extent rehabilitate the ideology that led us into this (admittedly bad) war. That's a political reason for not seeking the best possible outcome and indeed embracing a worse one. Is it not? Where's the straw in my man?

Posted by southpaw | October 31, 2007 2:27 PM

In the long run, maybe the very long run, of course Iraq will be a success. It's hardly going to be pure chaos forever and ever.

Exactly. And why would Bush get credit for that? Do we give Marie Antoinette credit for creating the French Republic?

Iraq will undoubtedly be better off someday. But it won't be because of the current war. It will be in spite of it.

Posted by Jinchi | October 31, 2007 2:29 PM

"No matter what happens, Iraq will still be worse off than it would have been had we not invaded..."

Really? Let's think about this:

Before we invaded, the largest demographic group in Iraq, the Shiites, had been living under a form of Apartheid, and tens of thousands had been tortured, raped, and killed every year by a Stalinist police state. Hundreds of thousands allegedly died due to the sanctions regime.

How would Iraq be worse off as a stable democracy? Certainly Iraqis have been killed during this transition, mostly by 'insurgents' and sectarian militias (reliable, non politically-motivated estimates put the number at ~80k), but remember how many Iraqis were killed by Saddam's regime every year that he was in power. The difference is that it didn't make the evening news every time some hapless Shia or Kurd was thrown into a plastic shredder.

Posted by Fred | October 31, 2007 2:29 PM

A peaceful situation is possible. It might be called a success.

The problem is that this "peace" involves total ethnic cleansing of Iraq. Which will happen whether we're there or not.

So the question is whether we should celebrate ethnic cleansing as a "success" and keep troops there to pretend we created this "success," or whether we should stop wasting lives and money to pretend that we can achieve "success" in Iraq.

Civil wars end eventually. Ethnic cleansing ends eventually. None of that means that we've achieved "success" in Iraq.

Posted by M.A. | October 31, 2007 2:30 PM

How would Iraq be worse off as a stable democracy? Certainly Iraqis have been killed during this transition, mostly by 'insurgents' and sectarian militias (reliable, non politically-motivated estimates put the number at ~80k),

That's an absurd low-ball number, as you know. But in any case, if you don't understand why it's worse to live in a horrific war zone than to live under a dictator, then you simply don't understand how do distinguish between the bad and the worse. As Jeanne Kirkpatrick pointed out, the miseries of everyday life in a dictatorship are more familiar and bearable than in the chaos unleashed by an overthrow of the government.

And if Iraq becomes a "stable democracy" in ten years, it had an equal (slim) chance of becoming one after Saddam died.

Posted by M.A. | October 31, 2007 2:35 PM

southpaw:

A peaceful situation is possible. It might be called a success. That strikes me as something less than an assertion of the inevitability of defeat. We can, it seems, get a peaceful situation and avoid defeat, as I read Matt's post. Now I asked, what would be so wrong with that (i.e. avoiding defeat)

What would be wrong is calling avoiding ultimate defeat a "success" insofar as that legitimizes the original cause for invasion and occupation.

That seems to be saying we should not seek the peaceful situation Matt offers because that would to some extent rehabilitate the ideology that led us into this (admittedly bad) war. That's a political reason for not seeking the best possible outcome and indeed embracing a worse one. Is it not? Where's the straw in my man?

It's perfectly simple: no one is saying "don't seek peace because then we won't learn our lesson." People are saying, don't call it "success". That's an important point in my view. Success, versus a calamity that we eventually patched up, are vital distinctions.

Posted by Bill | October 31, 2007 2:36 PM

what are you talking about? do you think anyone here is arguing that we ought to take steps to "ensure a catastrophe"? no one is arguing for that. everyone would agree that we should minimize the damage and contain the catastrophe that has already been unleashed.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, here. Matt said:

If we keep over 130,000 troops there for another eighteen months, and then tens of thousands of troops for years after that, the situation could well become peaceful . . .

And that was generally, at the top of this thread, appraised as some species of a BAD THING. Now, Matt also said:

. . . if the Democrats nominate an unapologetic war-supporter, and then she wins, and the war in some sense winds down during her term, then this makes it very likely that the Official Story of Iraq will be that the war, despite some problems, was ultimately successful. Conversely, if the Democrats nominate a candidate who disavows the war, and that candidate wins, the Official Story will deem the war a failure.

Gee, a failure, I wonder why that would be? Might it be that a victorious anti-war Democratic president would not allow the war to "wind down" in the relatively peaceful and happy manner of a putative President Clinton? Might such an anti-war president withdraw our troops from Iraq? And, whatever else might happen, that action would ensure some form of catastrophe . . . even one limited to this: we lost a war we could have ended peacefully and without dishonor.

Posted by southpaw | October 31, 2007 2:39 PM

success? who is defining this term? us here in the West?

There is no such thing as success and there never will be because WE invaded Iraq without reason and destroyed the country. Period. All arguments begin and end with that point.

It does not matter if we rebuild it and peace reigns.

The only people who are define success in Iraq are Iraqis.

Not think tanks, not intellectuals in the West, and certainly not occupying armies.

We have imposed our will on a country without just cause.

This is unlike Vietnam, WWII or Korea.

We did this.

I wish I could hope for success but this is so f***ed beyond all reason that I do not know what that term means.

And why should I here near DC be able to define success for Iraq?

Posted by glenn | October 31, 2007 2:43 PM

southpaw, i don't think you're straw-manning.

but i do think you are misrepresenting my's view (as well as mine, bill's etc.).

matt is willing to say that it is at least *plausible* that if we take one course of action, that might lead to one outcome.

but in fact, he believes that course of action is very *unlikely* to lead to that outcome, and more likely to lead to far *worse* outcomes. (if you have read my on the iraq war, then you know that his position is that the best way to salvage the best outcome for all parties involved is for us to leave right away.)

so saying "it is not completely implausible for someone to claim that doing x would lead to y" does not mean endorsing the view "hey, doing x would be a great way to guarantee y!", much less that by arguing *against* doing x, you are "ensuring" that y will not happen.

so what i think happened is this:
you read a passage where my says "for the sake of argument, let's suppose this would work", then you turned that into my's claiming it *will work*, and then you turned that into "anybody who doesn't do this is ensuring catastrophe".

that's where i think you went wrong.
in fact, keeping the troops there is *more* likely to ensure catastrophe than bringing them home sooner. that's my estimation, and i think it is matt's too.

Posted by kid bitzer | October 31, 2007 2:43 PM

wonder why that would be? Might it be that a victorious anti-war Democratic president would not allow the war to "wind down" in the relatively peaceful and happy manner of a putative President Clinton? Might such an anti-war president withdraw our troops from Iraq? And, whatever else might happen, that action would ensure some form of catastrophe . . . even one limited to this: we lost a war we could have ended peacefully and without dishonor.

See, now you're jumping to conclusions.

The fact is that the peace we see now is largely the result of effective ethnic cleansing. The American troops have not been successful in separating the parties, death squads were successful throughout the country - including in the peaceful North.

So to jump to the conclusion that all manner of horrible things will happen if our troops leave? That simply doesn't follow.

Posted by Jinchi | October 31, 2007 2:45 PM

I think Bush is maneuvering to a place where he can declare victory prior to leaving office. Iraq will look a little better than it does today (which is a lot better than it looked a year ago, and even better still the farther back you go). This will be inflated to sound like it was the plan all along. The line in the general election will be "those sniveling Defeatocrats wanted to leave as soon as we got in. They have no stomach for difficult endeavors, and they hate America too much to defend it anyway. Thank God for President Bush, whose steadfastness insured that we didn't leave too soon." This is mostly false (otherwise, Bush wouldn't say it), but also difficult to refute, because it involves making arguments too subtle for two-sentence invective-laced tirades. You read it here first.

Posted by Geoff G | October 31, 2007 2:47 PM

It's perfectly simple: no one is saying "don't seek peace because then we won't learn our lesson." People are saying, don't call it "success". That's an important point in my view. Success, versus a calamity that we eventually patched up, are vital distinctions.

That's fair, if this were a purely academic debate. I read Matt's post to suggest that there's a policy decision at stake here.

My (very rough) parsing of Matt's argument, as you can see above is: If we let Hillary control war policy, the war might end up relatively successful and that will be bad because Bush will look good. If we let a more ideologically congenial president control war policy, the war is sure to remain an unmitigated failure and therefore be seen as such, which is better.

Now, obviously, that sounds crazy to me. If it sounds crazy to you too, I'm very much relieved. But I'm not convinced this is only about historical labelling; I still suspect there may be some policy at stake here.

Posted by southpaw | October 31, 2007 2:49 PM

And, whatever else might happen, that action would ensure some form of catastrophe . . . even one limited to this: we lost a war we could have ended peacefully and without dishonor.

First, once you've redefined victory to where it's miles away from its original guise, you really no longer have the moral authority to demand ending the war your way. That's called moving the goalposts. The proverbial keys need to be out of such people's hands. Second, by any measure, this war is and has been a great loss, according to the heady objectives laid out in 2003. The loss already happened. It's not still your war to lose. You (collective) had your war, and you fucked it up. Now that we've lost the war you (collective) started, we're all collectively casting about for SOME kind of liveable aftermath. You know perfectly well what the best case scenario for Iraq is at this point for the intermediate term, and it ain't beautiful; there's been enough carnage over there by now to ensure DECADES of bitterness and instability. Now, how much "honor" there will be in that best-case scenario, I would submit, isn't for people who've long since blown their wad of war-of-choice-credibility to say.

Posted by Bill | October 31, 2007 2:51 PM

joejoejoe:

"The next Johns Hopkins mortality study is likely to show somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.5 million dead Iraqis over and above what would have existed during the Saddam era"

I'd be interested to see how Johns Hopkins will accomplish this. Do they have some sort of Space-Time machine which they can use to travel to alternate universes?

Was World War II a success? Any war is a failure and extracts a heavy cost.

If the Middle East becomes more democratic and peaceable - i.e. if the world doesn't end - then it will be judged not a complete waste.

If there are no more terrorist attacks on the US coming from the undemocratic Middle East, it will have been judged not a complete waste.
---------------
Fred:
"It's interesting to see that some liberal pundits are already steeling themselves for possible success in Iraq. It's also interesting to see some of Matt's commenters dig in their heels and resist even thinking about the possibility of success in Iraq."

I just don't like to see it as a liberal vs. conservative thing. The sooner it gets better there, the sooner we can pull the troops home, which is what liberals want.

Fact is, conservatives should be steeling themselves for a Democratic President + Democratic Congress.

Bush and co. massively screwed up on post-war Iraq (plus Katrina, etc.) The Republicans in Congress had tons and tons of scandals, so the changeover will prove democracy sort of works. Hopefull it will work in the Middle East.

Main thing is that there hasn't been another 9/11, if there had been, shameless liberals would have blamed it on Iraq.

Posted by Peter K | October 31, 2007 2:52 PM

I think Bush is maneuvering to a place where he can declare victory prior to leaving office.

Not gonna happen. Bush would've taken this tack long ago if he had any plan to do so. Plus if he declares victory, pulls out the troops and the civil war rages on, everyone will see it as a completely crass and self-serving move.

No, he'll give his successor the plan. If Iraq doesn't get fixed, well that just proves his successor didn't follow through.

It's a minor variation of the neocon's complaint that George Bush screwed up their beautiful plan to transform the Middle East.

Posted by Jinchi | October 31, 2007 2:52 PM

You know, while "ethnic cleansing" (ie, partition) is tragic, it's not the end of the world, and usually assures a peaceful detente between two hostile factions.

If violence in baghdad has abated because the shi'ites are on one side of the city and the sunnis are on the other, I think that's an acceptable outcome. Being forced to pick up and move to the other side of town where the only neighbors are your co-religionists is a heckuva lot better than being dead.

While this may not have been the goal of the surge (which was to force a political settlement which hasn't happened because while shi'ites and sunnis might occupy opposite ends of baghdad, they still have to occupy the same room in Parliament), it's perfectly conceiveable that any president other than Bush will seize on this event to declare victory and go home. Unfortunately, that will have the effect of just setting the US up to get bamboozled into the next money and life wasting quagmire of a war when we elected another mindless warmonger of a president.

Posted by Tyro | October 31, 2007 2:52 PM

"This is mostly false"

Why only "mostly" false? What parts do think our true?

"...but also difficult to refute, because it involves making arguments too subtle for two-sentence invective-laced tirades."

Give us the subtle, longer refutation. You can use as many sentences as you like. Be sure to address Harry Reid's claim last spring that the surge was already a failure, and the Democratic attempts to tie war funding requests to a timetable for retreat from Iraq, whatever the facts on the ground.

Posted by Fred | October 31, 2007 2:52 PM

And if, southpaw, you opposed the original war, take my comments as directed to those ur-war supporters who are advancing much the same reasoning as yourself.

Posted by Bill | October 31, 2007 2:55 PM

"Be sure to address Harry Reid's claim last spring that the surge was already a failure."

okay, fred, but i'm doing this only because after you get the answer you have to admit that you are the stupidest asshole ever.

1) the surge's only point was to make possible a political solution between the rival factions.
2) there has been no political solution, and in fact the factions have grown more deeply hostile to each other.
therefore:
3) the surge has failed to accomplish its only point.

you know, it is really hard to stand out as stupid when compared to other republican shills, but even compared to other republican shills, you really stand out as stupid.

Posted by kid bitzer | October 31, 2007 2:57 PM

You know, while "ethnic cleansing" (ie, partition) is tragic, it's not the end of the world, and usually assures a peaceful detente between two hostile factions.

Are you insane?

Maybe you could elaborate with reference to Rwanda, Burundi, Cambodia or WWII Germany.

Posted by Jinchi | October 31, 2007 2:58 PM

Peter K lays this old turd:

If there are no more terrorist attacks on the US coming from the undemocratic Middle East, it will have been judged not a complete waste.

Nice to see you still, this many years in, exhibit zero understanding of who attacked us and why. Demcoratizing the Middle East won't stop terrorism. Hunting down and killing terrorists will. Many of the 9/11 hijackers lived in Europe. Europe's democratic, right? Why didn't they change?

Posted by Bill | October 31, 2007 3:01 PM

JinChi, Rwanda, Burundi, WW2 Germany, and Cambodia were examples of "genocide." "Ethnic cleansing" usually refers to the mass forced deportation of people from a different ethnic group.

While the Germans from eastern Silesia and the Sudetenland didn't deserved to be ethnically cleansed out of their homes any more than the innocent Iraqis deserved to be forced to move out of their Baghdad neighborhoods, it's better than being dead and has the added advantage of no longer making you a target of hostile ethnic neighbors looking to take their nationalist agressions out on you.

Quite honestly, on the list of problems in Iraq, "lack of integrated multiethnic neighborhoods" falls down pretty low on the priority list.

Posted by Tyro | October 31, 2007 3:11 PM

I have read Matt for a long time, and I've always understood his position to be what kid bitzer described.

But I understood his reasoning on withdrawal to depend on the impossibility, rather than the unlikelihood, of achieving a better outcome by means of tenacity. This post, maybe because it's not very artfully worded, seems to concede that a better outcome might be achieved by means other than withdrawal. That's why it seemed important.

But you're right Bill, let's talk about me. I'm not here to paint a rosy colored picture of the war that I regret to say I supported. If you need to taxonomize me as a right-wing shill, I'm the "incompetence dodge" guy. I bought into Hitchens in 2002-2003. I believed that we should seize the strategic opportunity to remove a terrible dictator and give the Iraqi people a chance at freedom. I did not properly assess the capabilities of the Bush administration to bring that about, and I am much chastened by that fact. How this affects who the voters should nominate as the Democratic candidate for president I do not know.

Posted by southpaw | October 31, 2007 3:18 PM

Fred:

"Southpaw and John S.:

"Impressive posts.

"It's interesting to see that some liberal pundits are already steeling themselves for possible success in Iraq. It's also interesting to see some of Matt's commenters dig in their heels and resist even thinking about the possibility of success in Iraq."

Voices of conscienceless maniacs.

Posted by Jennifer | October 31, 2007 3:25 PM

thanks, southpaw.

"seems to concede that a better outcome might be achieved by means other than withdrawal"

yeah, i agree with this, provided that the "concede" is "for the sake of argument", and that the "might be" is highly stressed, i.e. "just maybe might, it's not impossible, though it's really not worth acting on".

Posted by kid bitzer | October 31, 2007 3:28 PM

Peter K - Johns Hopkins has this magic tool called peer-reviewed cluster sampling that is accepted by just about everyone, everywhere, except when it comes to Iraq where people can't bring themselves to look into the abyss. The UN accepts cluster sampling, the US State Department, the CDC, even President Bush signed a bill with a cluster sampling study as a finding of fact in the legislation (S.2125). Only Iraq apologists and assholes continue to deny the reliability of the Johns Hopkins mortality study.

Now watch while I pull a rabbit out of my hat and predict the future...

March '03 to Sept. '04: Aprox. 98,000 excess deaths (interval 8,000–194,000)
March '03 to July '06: Aprox. 654,965 excess deaths (interval 392,979–942,636)
March '03 to October '07: ???

Suppose 30% more time in Iraq and a roughly equal amount of violence and you get...

March '03 to Oct. '07: Est. 851,500 excess deaths (interval 509,000-1,220,000)

Take us to January '09 and we're at the 1.5 million mark at the high end of the interval. I apologize for not hitting the mark spot on in my off the cuff remark above but I'm close.

Wars do cost a lot of money. It's the cost/benefit ratio that sane people look at to determine success. Seeing as the humanitarian benefit has been a net negative(i.e. doing nothing would have been much, much better for the people of Iraq) and the resources in Iraq more scare (and resources everywhere else more expensive) I think it's safe to say the Iraq War was...not a success.

Posted by joejoejoe | October 31, 2007 3:29 PM

to explain "not worth acting on"; not because the stakes are not high, or the outcome desirable, but because our best shot at that outcome lies in doing the exact *opposite*.

yeah, maybe if we keep troops there forever then iraq will become free and prosperous. not impossible and that's a desirable outcome. but that plan is not worth acting on, because it's far more likely to result in extending the catastrophe. and if we want that outcome, a free and prosperous iraq, we are more likely to see it happen sooner by our leaving with all deliberate speed.

Posted by kid bitzer | October 31, 2007 3:32 PM

Comparing the attitudes of people after the Korean War to those of people today is basically pointless. Yes, it's true, the passage of time can change people's perspectives. So what? The point is, are their any salient parallels between the Korean conflict and the Iraq invasion & occupation.
=================================================

Well, if you think it's pointless, then you must think Yglesias' whole post is pointless. He's come to the shocking conclusion that 50 years from now people might have a different opinion about Iraq than they do now.

Korea is an excellent example of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Casualties

You have very strong opinions on the *truth* of Iraq. In 1952 most of the public had strong opinions on the *truth* of Korea.

- Over 36,000 Americans gave their lives in a war to defend a country that had no natural resources we needed, was not a significant trading partner, and that was run by an authoritarian strongman and a group of oligarchs.

- It was an unnecessary war partly caused because Truman's *incompetent* Sec of State Acheson pointedly left South Korea off the list of vital countries we would defend in Asia

- Truman incompetently managed the DoD such that American troops in Korea didn't have the weapons and equipment they needed and were easily defeated by North Korea's ramshackle army. Thousands of American boys died unnecessarily because of this. And the "Buck didn't stop here" with Truman - his Sec of Defense was fired and took the fall for him.

"Stunned, Truman called for a naval blockade of Korea, which went into effect; while the U.S. Navy no longer possessed sufficient surface ships with which to enforce such a measure, no ships tried to challenge it. Truman promptly urged the United Nations to intervene; it did, authorizing armed defense for the first time in its history. (The Soviet Union was not present at the Security Council vote that approved the measure.) However, Truman decided not to consult with Congress, an error that greatly weakened his position later in the conflict.

In the first four weeks of the conflict, the American infantry forces hastily deployed to Korea proved too few and were under-equipped. The Eighth Army in Japan was forced to recondition World War II Sherman tanks from depots and monuments for use in Korea."

- In addition to waging war with Congressional approval, Truman made other unconstitutional power grabs

"In response to a labor/management impasse arising from bitter disagreements over wage and price controls, Truman instructed his Secretary of Commerce, Charles W. Sawyer, to take control of a number of the nation's steel mills in April of 1952. Truman cited his authority as Commander in Chief and the need to maintain an uninterrupted supply of steel for munitions to be used in the war in Korea. The Supreme Court found Truman's actions unconstitutional, however, and reversed the order in a major separation-of-powers decision. The 6–3 decision, which held that Truman's assertion of authority was too vague and was not rooted in any legislative action by Congress, was delivered by a Court composed entirely of Justices appointed by either Truman or Roosevelt. The high court's reversal of Truman's order was one of the notable defeats of his presidency."

- American troops committed and were complicit in war crimes and killed tens of thousands of innocent Koreans unnecessarily.

"For a time, American troops were under orders to consider any Korean civilians on the battlefield approaching their position as hostile, and were instructed to "neutralize" them because of fears of infiltration. This led to the indiscriminate killings of hundreds of South Korean civilians by the U.S. military at places such as No Gun Ri, where many defenseless refugees — most of whom were women, children and old men — were shot at by the U.S. Army and may have been strafed by the U.S. Air Force. Recently, the U.S. admitted having a policy of strafing civilians in other places and times."

"South Korean military, police and paramilitary forces, often with U.S. military knowledge and without trial, executed in turn tens of thousands of leftist inmates and alleged Communist sympathizers in the incidents such as the massacre of the political prisoners from the Daejeon Prison and the bloody crackdown on the Cheju Uprising. Gregory Henderson, a U.S. diplomat in Korea at the time, put the total figure at 100,000, and the bodies of those killed were often dumped into mass graves"

- War profiteers made a killing

- Truman allowed the commanding general, McArthur, to screw up the situation so badly that the Communist Chinese were drawn into the war. Truman had to fire McArthur and having the Chinese in the war lengthened the shooting war by almost three years, costing tens of thousands of American and Korean lives.

- Everyone *knew* Truman was an incompetent failure. He couldn't manage the economy - there'd been a sharp recession. His own party refused to renominate him for the 1952 race.

"Fierce criticism from virtually all quarters accused Truman of refusing to shoulder the blame for a war gone sour and blaming his generals instead."

There were calls for his impeachment:

"The Chicago Tribune called for immediate impeachment proceedings against Truman:

President Truman must be impeached and convicted. His hasty and vindictive removal of Gen. MacArthur is the culmination of series of acts which have shown that he is unfit, morally and mentally, for his high office. . . . The American nation has never been in greater danger. It is led by a fool who is surrounded by knaves. . . "

=================================================

Sound familiar?

But here we are 55 years later and we don't think of Truman and the Korean War quite that way, do we?

When we think of Truman we think of the Marshall Plan, NATO, the Berlin Airlift, desegregation of the military, containment of the USSR, "Dewey Beats Truman", "The Buck Stops Here".

So frankly, none of us has a clue what the country will think of Bush and Iraq in 2062 - no matter what you know the *truth* is now.

Posted by Campesino | October 31, 2007 3:41 PM

Campesino, the Chicago Tribune explains the extire thing with Truman's unpopularity-- his firing of McArthur damned him in the eyes of many, who viewed the latter man as a hero and viewed Truman as weak for "backing down" in Korea.

In fact, it turned out that refusing to expand the Korean war into China turned out to be a really, really good idea.

Besdies, it's not like Bush has the Berlin Airlift to fall back on.

Posted by Tyro | October 31, 2007 3:44 PM

Campesino, the Chicago Tribune explains the extire thing with Truman's unpopularity-- his firing of McArthur damned him in the eyes of many, who viewed the latter man as a hero and viewed Truman as weak for "backing down" in Korea.

In fact, it turned out that refusing to expand the Korean war into China turned out to be a really, really good idea.

Besdies, it's not like Bush has the Berlin Airlift to fall back on.

Posted by Tyro | October 31, 2007 3:44 PM

=================================================

My point is that we don't know what our grandchildren are going to remember Bush for. If you'd told people in the summer of 1952 that we think of Truman as a straight-talking stand-up guy who did lots of good things for the country they'd have thought you insane.

It's not inevitable that Bush will be remembered as a bad actor, anymore that it was inevitable that Truman was.

Posted by Campesino | October 31, 2007 3:59 PM

My point is that we don't know what our grandchildren are going to remember Bush for.

Well, it depends how much the passage of the Do-Not-Call-List legislation becomes a prominent in our memories of the early 21st century. If it is regarded as a milestone in the history of American telecommunications, George W. Bush will go down in history as a hero.

Other than that? Not so much. As Josh Marshall pointed out, 80 years on, "Warren Harding studies" is not exactly a vibrant area of academic interest among historians.

Posted by Tyro | October 31, 2007 4:04 PM

The point is that Truman is not remembered well because of the Korean war. He's remembered well for other stuff.

If Bush becomes well-remembered for stuff unrelated to Iraq (though I find that unlikely), that will hardly redeem the Iraq disaster.

Posted by M.A. | October 31, 2007 4:10 PM

Of course they won't, since there aren't any such running - nothing like.

But isn't it pretty clear that Clinton isn't an unapologetic war supporter?

So would the two of you be so kind as to point me to her apology?

Posted by novakant | October 31, 2007 4:26 PM

The point is that Truman is not remembered well because of the Korean war. He's remembered well for other stuff.

It's interesting to wonder exactly why Truman is remembered well. Largely, he's remembered well for defeating Dewey. Other than being a rousing campaigner, threatening to punch a critic of his daughter, and desegregating the armed forces, what do people actually remember of Truman?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 31, 2007 4:28 PM

second sentence should be in italics, too, sorry

Posted by novakant | October 31, 2007 4:28 PM

joejoejoe, I'm not denying how bad it's been in Iraq. I'll ask again: Do the good folks at John Hopkins have some sort of gizmo which allows them to travel to an alternate universe where

1) the Coalition of the Wiling never occupied Iraq

2) Saddam remained in power

No? I'll guess we'll never know what would have happened. I do know Iraqi kids wouldn't be running around flying kites under a rainbow like in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911.

Posted by Peter K. | October 31, 2007 5:04 PM

JinChi, Rwanda, Burundi, WW2 Germany, and Cambodia were examples of "genocide." "Ethnic cleansing" usually refers to the mass forced deportation of people from a different ethnic group.

Tyro, if you don't realize that "ethnic cleansing" is a euphemism for genocide, you might want consider the origin of the term. It was a polite way of describing the slaughter being perpetrated on the Bosnian Muslims by the Bosnian Serbs. Check out what happened to the male population of Zepa and tell me that isn't genocide.

The Iraqi death squads are using the same methods to purify their own areas.

Posted by Jinchi | October 31, 2007 5:13 PM

What about Vietnam?

As a chickenhawk, I nevertheless believe it was a criminal aggresion by the US. A huge waste of American and Vietnamese life.

The fact that Nixon was elected after Johnson didn't change people's views, right?

In my view, the Vietnam War didn't make a difference which way the Cold War went. The US lost Vietnam and won the Cold War.

If there hadn't been a Vietnam War, China would still have became a Capitalist powerhouse.

At least, that's what I would guess would have happened.

With Iraq and the Middle East, if it all goes south, the consequences will be much graver than with Vietnam.
---------------
Bill:
Nice to see you still, this many years in, exhibit zero understanding of who attacked us and why. Demcoratizing the Middle East won't stop terrorism. Hunting down and killing terrorists will. Many of the 9/11 hijackers lived in Europe. Europe's democratic, right? Why didn't they change?
-----
They lived in Europe but weren't assimilated. They were raised in the Middle East by families in the Middle East. A lot of it is religious nuttery. Why is this difficult for you to understand? Do terrorists just magically appear and the environment has nothing to do with it?

Osama bin Laden lived in Europe?

Interesting to see that the King of Saudi Arabia started a university in Jedda which has a huge endowment. Supposedly the religious establishment won't be happy about it.

Posted by Peter K. | October 31, 2007 5:20 PM

Of course, if the Democrats nominate Clinton and she keeps 130k troops in Iraq and Iraq is still the same bloody mess it is today, it will likely kill any chance the Democratic party has of being a real political force in the coming decade.

Posted by Soullite | October 31, 2

Time Heals All Wounds

Comments (81)