We thought that it was about terrorism. Iran thought that it was about regional hegemony. As a result, Iran is well on its way to regional hegemony. And terrorist groups are stronger--and better funded--than ever. It's hard to win when you don't know what war you are in.

Bill writes "if that [maintaining regional hegemony] had been the main US concern, we'd have prioritized maintenance of Iraq as a foil for Iranian interest in the region, rather than taking the strategic gamble to depose the Baathist regime." Doesn't this piece of reasoning have a false premise? On the evidence, the people who have been running things for the last six years have a great deal of trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time. Why assume that these characters have enough sense to recognize that deposing Saddam by a war of dubious legality was a bad way of pursuing regional power?

Compare the common and equally unsound argument that our activities in Iraq have nothing to do with oil because physically occuping a country is a bad way to ensure that its resources will be available. The problem is, the people who brought us the war are just the kind of people who don't necessarily understand that invading Iraq wasn't a good way of keeping gas prices down. These guys think they're playing RISK.

Jim -

Why assume that these characters have enough sense to recognize that deposing Saddam by a war of dubious legality was a bad way of pursuing regional power?

Given that you probably came over from Salon.com, I can only suggest that you read George Packer's brilliant Assassin's Gate. It will be ideologically palatable to you, as well as provide a decent summary of the motivations that spurred Bush's advisors.

These motivations include the strategic suppression of terrorism by introducing naturally moderating Democracy. This is also certainly a foil for Iran's regional hegemony in the long-term, but short- or mid-term-prioritization of counterbalancing Iran would probably preclude it, and many of the architects of the Iraq War are/were plenty smart enough to understand that risk. They simply chose to take it.

The problem is, the people who brought us the war are just the kind of people who don't necessarily understand that invading Iraq wasn't a good way of keeping gas prices down.

I disagree very strongly with you here. I think that you might gravitate towards any narrative that can show the Bush Admin as either maliciously self-interested or incompetent. Sometimes, the most you can reasonably (subjectively) argue is one or the other. Shrug.

My original comment was a complaint about the logic of your statement, not a judgment about the actual motivations of the advisors, which, so far as I can tell, were all over the place.

I do think that the low competence level of the administration was a real factor in how things unravelled. That's hardly a odd spin on a historical disaster. The mediocrity of European leaders in 1914 is widely acknowledged to have been a major reason why the umpteenth Balkan crises was allowed to turn into a continent-wide conflagration.

By the way, shouldn't we all stop using the word "Democracy?" as if what we wanted to impose on Iraq had anything to do with the consent of the governed. Right-wing and, for that matter, centrist discourse uses the word "democracy" in much the same fashion as Breshnev, who also supported everyone's right to vote as long as they agree to vote correctly.

My original comment was a complaint about the logic of your statement, not a judgment about the actual motivations of the advisors, which, so far as I can tell, were all over the place.

You originally wrote:

Doesn't this piece of reasoning have a false premise? On the evidence, the people who have been running things for the last six years have a great deal of trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time. Why assume that these characters have enough sense to recognize that deposing Saddam by a war of dubious legality was a bad way of pursuing regional power?

Maligning the assumption that they have sense about removing Saddam as a methodology to pursue regional power quite forcefully implies judgment on the motivations of the war architects. Shrug.

I do think that the low competence level of the administration was a real factor in how things unravelled.

I agree with you here and I don't. I agree that the planning for post-occupation Iraq was mismanaged. Whether a properly managed post-invasion would have made things a lot better or ended up the same way is not certain.

Right-wing and, for that matter, centrist discourse uses the word "democracy" in much the same fashion as Breshnev, who also supported everyone's right to vote as long as they agree to vote correctly.

Silly. You seem like a relatively bright guy, but I find this overly paranoid and cynical. Maliki is not America's preferred Prime Minister, yet America works with the choice.

Cynicism is only useful to the extent it leads to honest pursuit of the truth, not a reflexive condemnation of preestablished targets. In your case, these predetermined targets are the Bush Admin and perhaps, more broadly, American power and motivation itself.

A government truly representative of the wider Iraqi populace - not one dominated by extreme elements or foreign influence - would coalesce with Western interests. I'm not naive enough to think the US wouldn't assert self-interest to the detriment of others, but sometimes (often) the "right" thing and US interests collide quite forcefully. It may not happen, but a successful, representative Iraq is one of those times.

You make a second logical error in attempting to defend your first mistake. I made absolutely no claims about the motivations of the promoters of the war: I simply questioned your assumption that they were capable of clear thinking. You are correct, however, that I did imply a judgment as to their competence. But then if this group is not incompetent, achieving "true" incompetence may be beyond the power of mortal men.

As you'll recall Maliki became prime minister after the original choice was blocked, in part by American pressure. You're quite right that Maliki is problematic for us, but that simply reflects the trouble with puppet regimes everywhere. Either you keep them on a short leash and they lose every bit of local legitimacy or they start to imagine they are really independent and cause you trouble. Even the Nazis had trouble with some of their Quislings, included, as I recall, Quisling. Meanwhile, what is clear from polling data is that the Iraqis don't want us in Iraq so that apparently their "representative" government isn't all that representative. Of course, neither is ours. Most Americans want us out of Iraq. Good luck to us, too. I think this tragedy will be played out to the last bloody act. I'm sure you'll shrug that off, too.

I simply questioned your assumption that they were capable of clear thinking.

Again, your words seem more pointed than you characterize them, but I'm admittedly prone to "logical errors."

Meanwhile, what is clear from polling data is that the Iraqis don't want us in Iraq so that apparently their "representative" government isn't all that representative.

This is not as succinct as you characterize it (though newer polls are moreso), as there are dueling polls and critical details in the timeframe for them wanting us out. In addition, there is a crucial difference between representative government and direct democracy. Elected leaders make choices that are not always wholly derivative of popular opinion, based on the assumption that they have additional knowledge or perspective.

I'm sure you'll shrug that off, too.

I'm not shrugging off the seriousness of anything taking place in Iraq; I'm shrugging off your entertainingly exaggerated emotionalism, which is an extraordinairy trait in someone so, so logical.

You liberals have got it so wrong. The president is right, that's why he's the president. And he has surrounded himself with intelligunt people who, with their vast years of experience in the military and high office, he relies on for the most accurate assessment of the reality of Commie/Facist/Islamo plans to take over the world and take away our guns, just like you chickens want. That's why he's the decider, a do-gooder, and the MSM which is owned by liberal cut-and-runners like GE, Times/Warner, and Rupurt Mirdock are all in bed with the do-badders. He has a secret plan for total victory, so shut up, or else it won't be a secret and the traitors win! Do you want to lose? All this talk about saving lives and money and you never thought about what's good for America - Do you want to lose! I say we back him in whatever he wants to do because it's good for America. Pinheads for Bush say: Re-elect Bush in 2008!

Very subtle, Carl.

The point isn't that democracy is unproblematic. It's very problematic. When the Algerian army overturned the result of a fair election some years ago, very few American commentators either left or right objected because they didn't like the election's results, which were the victory of the Islamacists. I wasn't unhappy about the army's action at the time myself. On the other hand, I didn't go around claming that my position was based on democracy "properly understood." My objection to our use of the word democracy is an objection to hypocrisy and the much more serious moral evasions it leads to. And of course, like everybody else, I'm very well aware of the difference between direct and representative democracy. Thing is, it is one thing to have a system of government in which the wishes of the people are sometimes not put into effect by their representatives and another to have a system in which the wishes of the people are never put into effect, even when, as in the present instance, they're right.

As you may know, the End of History notion that everybody is going to wind up living in a democracy is actually recycled Hegel; but Hegel's version of the idea may be more accurate than Fukuyama's. The end state envisioned by Hegel was a constitutional monarchy administered by highly-rational bureaucrats. Such a polity surely beats anarchy or despotism, but it isn't exactly democratic as Americans would understand the term. As I read the on-going debate about Iraq, my impression is that most of us would settle for a "decent" regime now: I forget who originated the "decent" bit.

You call me emotional, I think of myself as passionate for the same reason, as is well known, that I am stout but you are fat. On the other hand, the freedom of speech does justify yelling fire in a crowded theater when the theater is in fact on fire.

By the way, I usually don't get involved in such long exchanges and I have no desire to harass you. If you feel like I'm playing the troll, let me know and I'll shut up.

If you feel like I'm playing the troll, let me know and I'll shut up.

Nah, you're ok. But as you can see, I like to dish it out a bit.

These motivations include the strategic suppression of terrorism by introducing naturally moderating Democracy.

As a bit of an aside I have often wondered why it is that Afghanistan couldn't have fulfilled this role. I mean we were there, we decapitated the Taliban and then literally “cut and run” from that country. Those who are now suggesting that the leave Iraq or draw down troop levels are, in fact, being accused of being cutters and runners what that it pretty much exactly what we did in Afghanistan. If you what to see what Iraq might look like if we draw down one need to look no farther then Afghanistan.

But the question remains, if we had never bothered to invade Iraq would not all of the “benefits” that hawk dead-enders cling to as rationalizations for staying in Iraq have been realized in Afghanistan? Let’s count them off.

Flypaper – Check we would have been fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan rather then here.

Creating a stable democracy – While it would have been harder without the benefit of oil revenue to fund it, it still would have been achievable and lets be frank, there is already a majority Muslim democracy in Turkey, why would another necessarily change the balance of power.

The precise problem with Iraq is that there are so many other motivations for fighters in Iraq (Sectarian, power vacuums, regional hegemony) that have precious little to do with the brand of Muslim terrorists that are actively seeking to bring the war to American soil propelling the violence there. To say that want is going on in Iraq is all about terrorism is like saying Gumbo is all about water. There is simply too much in the way of competing interests fueling the violence to start making any kind of general statement about the brand of terrorism that would have the most impact on the US.

This is why I was always suspicious of our adventure in Iraq, I mean we had the goodwill of the world on our side, hell we had the French on our side, then we decided to “cut and run” from Afghanistan in order to move the playing field to Iraq. The abrupt dropping of Afghanistan in order to try and pull off the far riskier task of moving the venue in the WoT to Iraq made it very difficult for me to come to any other conclusion that the move was less about terrorism then an excuse to try and protect the free flow of oil (but they failed to even do that).Especially in light of the fact that James Baker was advocating the dropping of oil sanctions in Iraq at the Cheney energy tasks force in order to up the production of Iraqi oil on to the world market. Obviously that course of action would have been impossible in a post 9/11 world and the Bush administration knew that they would never have such a golden opportunity to get into the Middle East in such a big way.

Rick -

I'd like to address your comment in full, but I've got limited time, so I'll just give you three points:

1. As a bit of an aside I have often wondered why it is that Afghanistan couldn't have fulfilled this role.

Afghanistan lacks the infrastructure, education, and tradition to be a truly successful, viral regional power as democracy.

2. The reasons for Iraq are terribly convoluted and intertwined, so wrapped up in Iraq's candidacy for Democratization was an unsustainable security situation (no-fly zones costing $$$ billions, for example) with the Hussein regime.

3. Bush pursued a Doctrine of Preemption. This doctrine made a lot of sense after 9-11, but its resonance with the population has faded after 5 years without another attack. But assuming the pursuit of the doctrine, Iraq provided a unique set of circumstances - a perfect test case/example - to establish the size of the American stick and preempt a perceived threat.

This is at least a half failure, given international political sensibility about how the war is progressing, and America's willingness to engage in another one.

I note, in passing, that the dollar cost of our involvement in Iraq has been vastly greater than the cost of maintaining the no-fly zones. Indeed, the money wasted on destroying Iraq would have sufficed to establish universal health care in America.

You write "This [the Doctrine of Preemption] made a lot of sense after 9-11." And yet it didn't, and not only for us quaint old foggies upset about the clear violation of international law involved. Anybody familiar with earlier campaigns against political terrorism knew that what worked against the IRA, the Basques, and the Red Brigades was patient, well-funded police work, not military over-reaction and public relations stunts. Five years later, we still lack enough operatives with the requisite linguisitic skills in Arabic, Pashtun, Farsi, and other Asian languages, an amazing and unaccountable failure.

The really notable thing about the run-up to the war is the way in which people convinced themselves that highly speculative theories of political evolution give them the right to kill and, indeed, as it has turned out, to torture a great many people. Well, once upon a time the Crusaders were sure of God's will and the Jihadists were sure of Allah's will and the Communists were sure of the outcome of the historical dialectic. I'm not sure that true believers in a rather notional version of democracy are a great deal different. If anything like democracy is indeed viral, it is apparently the European form of the germ, which insinuates itself into a society by persuasion and example, rather than forcing itself on unwilling people.

On the other hand, as you almost point out yourself, it may be that the desire to exhibit the size of the American stick is the basic motive.

Two quick points in rebuttal (not meant to be comprehensive just throwing them out for discussion), I would suggest that Afghanistan’s lack of infrastructure both physical and institutional would have made it a much better candidate for democratization as the same amount of money or less would have made a real difference in terms of quality of life and there much more world wide support of the effort.

Second the idea that sustaining the no-fly zones or establishing some kind of arms control regime (as recommended in the fist version of the Baker energy report to the Chaney energy task force) would have been a small percentage of what we have spent on this war which has a pretty good chance of making things worse in the long run for Iraq, not better.

Also I’m not so sure there is even a need for a model majority Muslim, secular democratic state as there is already one established, and how many models do you need?

I love it the way pundits speak about "democracy", "control of the region", "hegemony", "models", and so on, when it's really about "oil", yes, "oil". That's the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Even the Baker Report, the ISG, got some of that right.

You might look at this woman's analysis for starters:

http://www.TheBushAgenda.net

I love it the way pundits speak about "democracy", "control of the region", "hegemony", "models", and so on, when it's really about "oil", yes, "oil". That's the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Even the Baker Report, the ISG, got some of that in.

You might look at this woman's analysis for starters:

http://www.TheBushAgenda.net