redblueamerica.com

Dear Evan,
The purpose of my comment was not to attack your character in any way shape or form.

I would appreciate if you could return the favor by not putting in question my " thinking" ability.

The purpose of this site is to have a friendly dialogue between both sides, not to resolve to insults.
Let's try to keep it that way.

Sincerely,
Mercyphotography

Evan,

Reading your comments, I felt like pinching myself to make sure I wasn't dreaming.

You said that: " The US has a mandate to spread liberal, secular and egalitarian values to other societies", first of all none of the values you describe ( liberal, secular, egalitarian) apply to America.

They sound more like the terms a Roman Senator would have used talking about Rome as " vehicle of civilization ". Or even what Napoleon could have said..... when he was still Bonaparte.

Bottom line, in our case the " ideology" of the neo-cons was... well,a con job. It was never about lofties ideas of "spreading democracy" , but instead about good old fashion quest for power and riches.

As far as the conspiracy theory of having such fiasco in Iraq " by design", as if a bigger picture was in the work; it is of course absurb.

Conspiracy imply a degree of planning and foresight, not a Bush Administration strong suit. What they would rather do is buy into their own spin.

America has a very short experience in running an empire.....one common thing, they never last as long as expected.

Mercyphotography

I'm not unfamiliar with the "let's spread democracy" trend, and I agree it's the most disturbing counter-claim to the idea that the Bush administration is somehow distant from the rest of the Conservative movement in this country. But in this case there is an important distinction to be made.

I was speaking about those decision-makers who a) actually speak with some authority about the war (in which I now, grudgingly, include the President) and b) are in a position to do something about it (in which I also, grudgingly, include the President). The rest of the pundits can and will propagate the "America as the healer, bringing all things light and good" rhetoric, with the sad state of Iraq as evidential support, for the forseeable future. However, the people who I do not hear peddling this rhetoric are the likes of General David Petraeus et al.

There is a time and place for listening to pundits, to political hacks, to people who are paid to work in think tanks and find reasonable-sounding ways to justify pre-determined policies. But this is neither the time or the place, with American lives on the line, and I choose not to be concerned with the history they are trying to write. Show me a commander on the ground who thinks that the lives of his men are best spent on a grand plan for democratizing the world - you won't find one. Go all the way up the chain of command, and for every self-important PAO are ten others who will tell you that we are still in Iraq because leaving creates a power vacuum we cannot afford to have filled by extremists already entrenched in the region.

Now feel free to disagree with that asessment. But please recognize that many of the people who support our continued presence in Iraq have watched fellow soldiers die on someone else's orders, and to suggest that they give a damn about hackneyed political philosophies at the end of the day is ridiculous. There are rational, thoughtful, and intelligent reasons to still be there. The greatest tragedy of this war may be that, just as we were willing to believe the facile foolishness that said we could be "in and out," we are equally willing to believe that we can leave now, because it makes us feel we have righted a wrong.

One does not need to construe a conspiracy theory to notice that neocons and liberals (depending on whether the war in question is being waged by a Left or center-Right administration) have a habit of acting zealously in their disregard for obvious human costs. Such costs are more likely to appear affordable in light of far loftier political goals.

I agree with all of that, and I check out Commentary and the Standard daily. And you're right about all that stuff.

But that wasn't, I think, the point of Matt Yglesias' post. Perhaps I need to re-read, though.

One does not need to construe a conspiracy theory to notice that neocons and liberals (depending on whether the war in question is being waged by a Left or center-Right administration) have a habit of acting zealously in their disregard for obvious human costs. Such costs are more likely to appear affordable in light of far loftier political goals. W and friends certainly exhibit sincerity, but let's not be Manichean--an image or idea can shape one's impression of events without amounting to the reason for his every action. I don't find it particularly hard to imagine a person, inside the government or out, seeing strife in Iraq a negligible fact--or even as potentially contributing to a wider American project, in the manner of round-about political mechanics. For example, if one were to view American withdrawal as likely allowing the rise of all sorts of Islamic Hitlers, hand-wringing over silly internal Iraqi squabbling would appear woefully naive. Have you taken a look at the New York Post recently? Commentary? The Weekly Standard? Have you spoken to many Republicans? Yes? Then is there any doubt that a great many people do in fact view the world in this way?

Your observation is sound as far as it goes, Joel, but you've missed the larger point, which was summed up a week or so ago by Matthew Yglesias over at The Atlantic blog:

“If your goal is an enduring American military presence in Iraq, you need political dysfunction. If Iraq were to emerge as a stable country with a government responsive to its citizens’ wishes, they’d tell the Americans to take a hike. It’s sectarian tensions and instability that make the continued, unpopular presence of a huge number of American boots on the ground viable.”

It's frustrating that the anti-war set hasn't yet been able to grasp this sort of logic. You'd think they would have picked up on it by now--after all, we've been at it for five years. Whatever helps America in its project to globalize democracy is good; instability in Iraq helps America in its project to globalize democracy; therefore instability in Iraq is good. Now, you might fall into the mistake of saying that instability is instability, which is bad. You would be forgetting that democracy itself is stability, as well as peace, justice, goodness, and cupcakes. So whatever facilitates an eternal drive toward universal democracy is equally just and good. Keep your eyes on the prize, Joel.

(Thanks to Justin Raimondo at TakiMag.com.)

http://www.takimag.com/sniperstower/arti...

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/a...