What went wrong in Iraq?

[HarmlessRabbit]

Interesting editorial from Paul Krugman. I think he does a good job of summarizing a lot of the current issues in Iraq. I didn't realize that corruption was such a huge problem there right now. I guess when you get the world military-industrial complex involved without a lot of controls, it's going to happen.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0423-01.htm

What Went Wrong?
by Paul Krugman


On April 11 of last year, just after U.S. forces took Baghdad, I warned that the Bush administration had a "pattern of conquest followed by malign neglect," and that the same was likely to happen in Iraq. I'm sorry to say those worries proved justified.

It's now widely accepted that the administration "failed dismally to prepare for the security and nation-building missions in Iraq," to quote Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies — not heretofore known as a Bush basher. Just as experts on peacekeeping predicted before the war, the invading force was grossly inadequate to maintain postwar security. And this problem was compounded by a chain of blunders: doing nothing to stop the postwar looting, disbanding the Iraqi Army, canceling local elections, appointing an interim council dominated by exiles with no political base and excluding important domestic groups.

The lesson of the last few weeks is that the occupation has never recovered from those early errors. The insurgency, which began during those early months of chaos, has spread. Iraqi security forces have walked off their jobs, or turned against us. Attacks on convoys have multiplied, major roads have been closed, and reconstruction has slowed where it hasn't stopped. Deteriorating security prevents progress, lack of progress feeds popular disillusionment, and disillusionment feeds the insurgency.

Why was it predictable that Iraq would go wrong? The squandered victory in Afghanistan was an obvious precedent. But the character flaws in the Bush administration that led to the present crisis were fully visible in the months that followed 9/11.

It quickly became apparent that President Bush, while willing to spend vast sums on the military, wasn't willing to spend enough on security. And 9/11 didn't shake the administration's fanatical commitment to privatization and outsourcing, in which free-market ideology is inextricably mixed with eagerness to protect and reward corporate friends.

Sure enough, the administration was unprepared for predictable security problems in Iraq, but moved quickly — in violation of international law — to impose its economic vision. Last month Jay Garner, the first U.S. administrator of Iraq, told the BBC that he was sacked in part because he wanted to hold quick elections. His superiors wanted to privatize Iraqi industries first — as part of a plan that, according to Mr. Garner, was drawn up in late 2001.

Meanwhile, the administration handed out contracts without competitive bidding or even minimal oversight. It also systematically blocked proposals to have Congressional auditors oversee spending, or to impose severe penalties for fraud.

Cronyism and corruption are major factors in Iraq's downward spiral. This week the public radio program "Marketplace" is running a series titled "The Spoils of War," which documents a level of corruption in Iraq worse than even harsh critics had suspected. The waste of money, though it may run into the billions, is arguably the least of it — though military expenses are now $4.7 billion a month. The administration, true to form, is trying to hide the need for more money until after the election; Mr. Cordesman predicts that Iraq will need "in excess of $50-70 billion a year for probably two fiscal years."

More important, the "Marketplace" report confirms what is being widely reported: that the common view in Iraq is that members of the U.S.-appointed Governing Council are using their positions to enrich themselves, and that U.S. companies are doing the same. President Bush's idealistic language may be persuasive to Americans, but many Iraqis see U.S. forces as there to back a corrupt regime, not democracy.

Now what? There's a growing sense of foreboding, even panic, about Iraq among national security experts. "This is an extremely uncertain struggle," says Mr. Cordesman, who, to his credit, also says the unsayable: we may not be able to "stay the course." But yesterday Condoleezza Rice gave Republican lawmakers what Senator Rick Santorum called "a very upbeat report."

That's very bad news. The mess in Iraq was created by officials who believed what they wanted to believe, and ignored awkward facts. It seems they have learned nothing.

[ARTelevision]

It's always illuminating how less than 700 words of self-convinced rhetoric can pass for something like substantive analysis. This is nothing but unsupported conclusions and hasty judgements that have nothing to do with the months of blood, sweat, and tears that constitute the massive and vastly serious undertaking of geopolitical leadership, decisionmaking, and execution in the real world.

The fact that these words have any power at all over us demonstrates only that we prefer simplicity over the near incomprehensibility of actual events. Those charged with the awesome responsibility of securing global interests and doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people - including the good people who put their lives on the line daily - deserve more than this sort of trashing.

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by ARTelevision
The fact that these words have any power at all over us demonstrates only that we prefer simplicity over the near incomprehensibility of actual events. Those charged with the awesome responsibility of securing global interests and doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people - including the good people who put their lives on the line daily - deserve more than this sort of trashing.

Well, I wouldn't exactly call Paul Krugman uninformed:
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/KRUGMAN-BIO.html

Columnist Biography: Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed Page and continues as professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University.

Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from MIT in 1977. He has taught at Yale, MIT and Stanford. At MIT he became the Ford International Professor of Economics.

Mr. Krugman is the author or editor of 20 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes. His professional reputation rests largely on work in international trade and finance; he is one of the founders of the "new trade theory," a major rethinking of the theory of international trade. In recognition of that work, in 1991 the American Economic Association awarded him its John Bates Clark medal, a prize given every two years to "that economist under forty who is adjudged to have made a significant contribution to economic knowledge." Mr. Krugman's current academic research is focused on economic and currency crises.

At the same time, Mr. Krugman has written extensively for a broader public audience. Some of his recent articles on economic issues, originally published in Foreign Affairs, Harvard Business Review, Scientific American and other journals, are reprinted in Pop Internationalism and The Accidental Theorist.

You can argue with his points, but dismissing his informed opinion out-of-hand is misguided, I think. This appears to me to be substantive analysis from an informed expert. I think he is quite qualfied to talk ont he subject of corruption in Iraq and its effect on the situation there.

I see absolutely no criticism at all of the people who "put their lives on the line every day."

[Sparhawk]

The 4-part marketplace spot Paul Krugman is reporting on can be found here: Spoils of War

The spoils of war add up to more than capturing expansive palaces and luxury cars. As Marketplace reporters have discovered, not all of the $22 billion being spent to rebuild Iraq is going where it should. Who's watching the money as it streams through Baghdad? Just about no one, and bribes and black marketeering are rampant, witnesses say. A leading anti-corruption group claims that at least 20% of U.S. money spent in Iraq is being lost to corruption. From Halliburton subsidiaries charging double for gas, Iraqi officials and Arabic translators unrestrained from pocketing millions of dollars, or even members of the interim governing Council accusing each other of taking tens of millions in bribes.

edit: my bold

20% of our money that is supposed to be helping these people build schools, reconstruct their infrastructure, etc, just vanishing into the hands of crooked war profiteers. It disgusts me.

[ARTelevision]

I'm not seeing how someone whose reputation is based on a career in international trade and finance is a valuable reference for matters of geopolitical military and security strategy. This is second-guessing an epochal event in mid-course as if it were currently amenable to historical perspective and judgement.

Mr. Krugman has no idea how things will turn out. His rhetorical certainty is just that. The fact that he proffers it in a matter-of-fact manner is disingenuous.

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by ARTelevision
I'm not seeing how someone whose reputation is based on a career in international trade and finance is a valuable reference for matters of geopolitical military and security strategy.

I'm not seeing how he *isn't* qualified to speak on matters of the economy of war, and the economy of Iraq. His editorial is full of facts, none of which appear to be in dispute.

It's funny how a hair-brained report on south african "genocide" from worldnetdaily goes unquestioned, but a well-thought editorial from a well-qualified source suddenly gets questioned. Mr. Krugman certainly has more qualification to speak on the economy of Iraq than, say, George Bush.

Yet, I hear no outcry when George Bush talks about the Iraqi economy that he lacks any economic qualifications to make his statements.

Given that the facts of the editorial have not yet been questioned it appears that no one is disputing Mr. Krugman's statements on the corruption in Iraq, just his qualification to say that there is corruption there.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
It's funny how a hair-brained report on south african "genocide" from worldnetdaily goes unquestioned, but a well-thought editorial from a well-qualified source suddenly gets questioned. Mr. Krugman certainly has more qualification to speak on the economy of Iraq than, say, George Bush.

I think you need to give this a rest.

That thread was questioned by no less than 6 individuals, including

charlesesl
Mr Mephisto
Bobaphat
Mobo
Yakk

and yourself.

So far in this thread, ONE moderator has disagreed with you and you are starting with the "bias" mantra.

Well guess what, Art has a right to his bias as much as you have a right to yours.


So if you are looking for a BB where all the mods agree with you, perhaps you need to go somewhere other than TFP, because quite honestly, this is getting old.

[Yakk]

Sparhawk hit keys at random, and this came out:
20% of our money that is supposed to be helping these people build schools, reconstruct their infrastructure, etc, just vanishing into the hands of crooked war profiteers. It disgusts me.

Strangely, the appearance of corruption, the acts of supporting corruption, the reaction to corruption, are all a much larger problem than the estimated 20% of the investment into Iraq that is being misspent.

It isn't a good thing, but it isn't the end of the world.

HarmlessWabbit wasn't in season, so could type:
Mr. Krugman certainly has more qualification to speak on the economy of Iraq than, say, George Bush.

Yet, I hear no outcry when George Bush talks about the Iraqi economy that he lacks any economic qualifications to make his statements.

While I am no fan of the American President, George Bush when he makes statements is not just speaking for himself. He has legions of research behind him.

So, even if he isn't personally an expert on a field, one cannot assume his statements haven't been vetted by people who are highly qualified in these matters.

A strange looking TV spoke:
It's always illuminating how less than 700 words of self-convinced rhetoric can pass for something like substantive analysis. This is nothing but unsupported conclusions and hasty judgements that have nothing to do with the months of blood, sweat, and tears that constitute the massive and vastly serious undertaking of geopolitical leadership, decisionmaking, and execution in the real world.

The thing is, I've seen these comments echoed before the fact. The article is missing the analysis to back it up, I'll admit.

The fact that these words have any power at all over us demonstrates only that we prefer simplicity over the near incomprehensibility of actual events. Those charged with the awesome responsibility of securing global interests and doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people - including the good people who put their lives on the line daily - deserve more than this sort of trashing.

Actually, they deserve to be heavily monitored and their every action scruitinized. Because they aren't just charged with an awesome responsibility, they are charged with awesome amounts of power and privledge. Quite rightly: in order to carry out their responsibilities, they need that power. The granting of this power, by their own citizens, and by the citizens of other nations (passivly or actively), means that those who grant it have the responsibility to know on what and why the power is being used.

When I pay taxes to the government, I become partially morally responsible for my governments actions. It is my job to make sure I can ensure my government acts morally. When my government signs defence and trade treaties with other nations, I become morrally responsible for the acts of that other government.

So yes, I will second guess my nation's leadership. I will second guess the leaders of other nations. Because that is my responsiblity.

[HarmlessRabbit]

Originally posted by Lebell
So far in this thread, ONE moderator has disagreed with you and you are starting with the "bias" mantra.

Well guess what, Art has a right to his bias as much as you have a right to yours.

Ok, sorry.

/getting off my high horse now

[ARTelevision]

I've always thought it very very easy to criticize, easy to call plays from the couch, simple to second guess. I often perceive as vacuous the shibolleth of couching such easy critique as some lofty responsibility to question. That's just me. But it might sometimes be worth considering how one may be perceived.

In any event, I find the current situation of our world to warrant a larger gathering of solidarity in support of the forces standing between ourselves and those in the world who do not value our lives and would instantly destroy us if given an opportunity.

[Rodney]

The original question was, "What went wrong in Iraq?"

I think it boils down to this, as neutrally as I can put it: the Bush Administration decided what needed to be done to and for Iraq, got the American public to buy in on the basis of world security against terrorism, and then went in and did what they did.

But nobody asked the Iraqi people what _they_ wanted. Chalabi doesn't count. He's got his own agenda, and it seems to involve lots of money.

We went in intending, on the record anyway, to establish a modern liberal democracy, and that's not something that the Iraqis trust at this point. Frankly, the only authority they know that hasn't ruled them (usually) under threat of violence are their own religious communities. And that's what a great many of them still want to rely on. American-style separation of church and state looks too much like the dictators, who almost always cloak themselves in flimsy trappings of democracy. They need to go through this joint religion/stae stage and then graduate from it, as we did a few hundred years ago and Iranian society is trying to do now.

Nobody likes to be occupied, and we've made so many missteps that now more and more Iraqs are loathe to trust us, especially as an Europeanoid power that in the Islmaic Mideast mindset can be easily associated with colonialism, which is a dirty word in the Mideast.

If the invasion of Iraq was necessary, we should have come in with the UN, and brought a whole lot of peacekeepers from non-Arab Islamic countries like Indonesia. We should have been more humble, and considered that what was best for us was not necessarily a good thing for the Iraqis. And we shouldn't have insisted on running the show. Even if Bush honestly believed in the WMD and their immiment use, the evidence shown should have been much more assiduously evaluated.

As it turns out, there is so far no sigh of a WMD threat, immediate or even medium-term. And personally, I have seen no evidence that there ever was any. At this point, the Bush administration would have no good reason to keep any hidden intelligence secret any longer. And if they did, they could say so: "We have damning evidence that we can't show you right now." Hell, I'd buy it. But they haven't.

[Rekna]

Originally posted by Yakk

So, even if he isn't personally an expert on a field, one cannot assume his statements haven't been vetted by people who are highly qualified in these matters.

I did this once before with WMD. I won't take his word on blind faith ever again.

[Boo]

I personally hold the Iraqi people responsible. It seems to me that they are not helping themselves when it would benefit them. An example is the looting. Maybe I just don't hear about them setting up schools, discouraging violence, stepping up as positive leaders or using their personal authority to guide the people around themselves to look toward their future.

I understand their anger over troops being in their country, but if they would step up to the plate, we would be out of there.

[Zeld2.0]

Well Boo... that certainly beckons a point...

Everyone loves to say how bad Saddam is... but to most of them, he was the only power there, he was the only one keeping the peace and keeping things in check. In some ways we disturbed the balance.

Its a strange strange world and in the end some things work, others don't.

[onetime2]

I agree wholeheartedly with ARTelevision on this topic. Yet another "I told you so" piece from someone that has never had to deal with the intricacies of nationbuilding.

I will say right now:

The economy will suffer when home prices decline.

So, now that I've said that, I can point to any administration in power when this occurs and say "I told you so". Of course, I offer no substantive proof that it will happen, no timeframe, no details on where and how, no prioritization of it versus, say, the need to tax internet purchases to stem the losses state governments are seeing in sales tax revenue and the inevitable impact on real estate taxes yet, the powers that be should be able to address it properly. If they don't it will be yet another example of how stupid they are.

[Pacifier]

Originally posted by onetime2
I agree wholeheartedly with ARTelevision on this topic. Yet another "I told you so" piece from someone that has never had to deal with the intricacies of nationbuilding.

So you think that noone should criticize the administration? Or that only people should criticize who:

have been to iraq at least 5 times
have let at least 6 nationbuilding missions
are experts for religious questions

Sorry, but it is quite clear that something went wrong in iraq and It is important to start asking your self what exactly went wrong. The USA has repeated enough errors already. The article, in my opinion, doesn't want to give a define answer, it wants to give some points to start a discussion with.

Do you think the article is completly wrong? If so, what do you think caused the problems in iraq? or do you prefer not to learn from the errors that were made?

[ARTelevision]

It's not clear at all to me at all that anything has gone wrong. That's all there is to say about that.

As for criticism and asking questions. We're free to do that. Do I think it's the most effective and constructive way to defend ourselves from the current and imminent threats that exist to our safety and security at this moment? No.

[onetime2]

Originally posted by Pacifier
So you think that noone should criticize the administration? Or that only people should criticize who:

have been to iraq at least 5 times
have let at least 6 nationbuilding missions
are experts for religious questions

Sorry, but it is quite clear that something went wrong in iraq and It is important to start asking your self what exactly went wrong. The USA has repeated enough errors already. The article, in my opinion, doesn't want to give a define answer, it wants to give some points to start a discussion with.

Do you think the article is completly wrong? If so, what do you think caused the problems in iraq? or do you prefer not to learn from the errors that were made?

Where do you see that I said no one could criticize the situation?

My specific issue with the article is that the author is saying I told you "this" was going to happen without any specifics and then points to some current issues as obvious failings. He seems to be assuming that Iraq is completely out of control and that insurgency is "spreading". It seems to me that the areas of conflict are rather localized and not spreading.

Anyone can sit back and point fingers at current issues. Did this man say, on April 11 of last year, that we needed to have a plan to deal with Sadr? That Fallujah would be a hotspot? Where are the specific examples of him pointing out issues? Did he know that Iraq would be taken as quickly as it was? Of course he didn't, he made vague reference to how it was going to fail and no matter how it turned out I suspect he would find evidence that he was right.

[shakran]

Art, before the war Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush all said they knew where the weapons were (They're in an area around Baghdad and Tikrit, said Rumsfeld) and that the war would be antiseptic, quick, and the liberated Iraq would be realized quickly. None of those predictions or statements have turned out to be accurate. How can you possibly say that it isn't clear something has gone wrong?

[irateplatypus]

i do clearly remember the administration saying they knew were the weapons were, that has definitely been proven untrue. i do not recall them saying the war would be anything like antiseptic, quick, and realized quickly.

what i do remember is the media giving us scenarios involving thousands of US dead before the war... them reverting to an all-sunshine outlook after we took baghdad.

it's frustrating that even during times of war they feel the need to manufacture news.

[Yakk]

Originally posted by Rekna
I did this once before with WMD. I won't take his word on blind faith ever again.

I didn't say faith. I said that Bush, when he makes statements, should be considered an expert on the subject.

If he makes an untrue statement, this reflects on his honesty and on his reliability on all subjects. This makes him a possibly dishonest and/or unreliable expert, but still an expert.

[Rekna]

Originally posted by Yakk
I didn't say faith. I said that Bush, when he makes statements, should be considered an expert on the subject.

If he makes an untrue statement, this reflects on his honesty and on his reliability on all subjects. This makes him a possibly dishonest and/or unreliable expert, but still an expert.

except Bush claims he wasn't dishonest and it was an intellegence failure that caused the lack of WMD. This speaks directly his expertise. I hardly consider him an expert anymore.

[ARTelevision]

Many months were wasted waiting for a consensus from nations that had corrupt vested economic interests in maintaining the maleficent Hussein regime. Time enough to move WMD. The conquest of the evil regime was indeed rapid. And compared to the many years that it took for post-WW2 occupied nations to stabilize, the liberation of Iraq is moving swiftly.

Opinions to the contrary can be seen as unrealistically impatient at best and agenda-motivated at their worst.

[Zeld2.0]

The difference between Iraq and post-WW2 occupied nations is that they weren't out there bombing and shooting at our soldiers long after major fighting was to be over. The conditions, history, ideology, and background of these areas is also strikingly different. What success in the past in different conditions shouldn't be a matter in what we do now to make sure things do not get worse.

[ARTelevision]

The difference is that our forces were not hamstrung by internationalists and appeasers so that they were able to achieve total victory and total submission of the enemy forces by the means that were tactically necessary.

Today, we have to put up with the scrutiny of many who, are - as I stated - unrealistically impatient at best and agenda-motivated at their worst.

...

Note: The occupation of Kosovo is a more current comparison that demonstrates again that no matter who the occupiers, peace is neither always kept by peaceful means nor is it attained in a matter of months.

[OFKU0]

Originally posted by ARTelevision


Opinions to the contrary can be seen as unrealistically impatient at best and agenda-motivated at their worst.

And God knows we don't need that nonsense. Oppps,..is it still o.k to say God?

[Wax_off]

Originally posted by ARTelevision
The difference is that our forces were not hamstrung by internationalists and appeasers so that they were able to achieve total victory and total submission of the enemy forces by the means that were tactically necessary.

Well, that is ONE of the differences. Besides the ones listed above, there are many more. One more is that in WWII we were fighting national entities that had the ability to sign binding surrender documents and had easy to define boundaries.

It's really not as simple as you seem to want to make it out to be.

[ARTelevision]

You're making my point. The war in Iraq is not simply resolved. The US is executing well. given the realities of the situation.
Thanks for giving me an additional reason that demonstrates the war is going well - all things considered.

[Sparhawk]

Originally posted by ARTelevision
The difference is that our forces were not hamstrung by internationalists and appeasers so that they were able to achieve total victory and total submission of the enemy forces by the means that were tactically necessary.

Ah the good ol' days, when we could put 100,000 Japanese-Americans into internment camps, firebomb Dresden and nuke Nagasaki...

The fact of the matter is that there are two sides, equally important, to winning the War on Terror:

1) The military, or "hard" side, in which our special forces units, working with police and military overseas, along with our FBI and other counter-terrorism units stateside are performing brilliantly.

2) The social, or "soft" side, in which we need to win the hearts and minds of the 1 billion Muslims worldwide who aren't terrorists, but are sympathetic to the plight of their fellow Muslims in a world that is increasingly hostile to them. This side of the war we are losing - as a result of, among other things, our negotiation with Israel, where Sharon quite deftly outmaneuvered us, to the struggle in Iraq, where we are seen increasingly as occupiers and not as liberators, to Afghanistan, where the NATO defense force is relegated to the capital city and a few other places, and heroin and opium production is at record levels.

[ARTelevision]

Sparhawk,
Your scheme is essentially correct. I was addressing only the military aspects of managing the current situation.

I'm not sure I'd put the second part in terms of winning anyone's hearts and minds. But I know what you mean, I think. Could we just call it the diplomatic strategy?

In general though, sure enough. This campaign to secure the world against suicidal and apocalyptic terror must be waged on both military and diplomatic fronts.

My sense of how diplomacy is best conducted today is from a strong position of pragmatic self-interest and not from any sort of internationalist agenda.

[Yakk]

ARTelevision, if the USA is pragmatically self-interested, and doesn't take a long term perspective, others will be short-term pragmatic, and attempt to destroy the USA before it can destroy them. I mean, it is in the short-term best interest of the USA to have the middle east under its heel, shipping oil to to feed the military industrial complex.

Long-term practical self interest of the USA, meanwhile, looks a fuck of alot like being an internationalist. A massive chunk of American power comes from the freely given consent of the world: squandering that good will is killling peter to save paul.

If you don't want people thinking their best hope for a better life is to tear down the USA, you got to give them a better hope.

And the international community isn't "hamstringing" the USA in Iraq. They are just not helping. Has France, Germany, or even China fired a gun at American troops? Refusing to cooperate with a war they believe was justified with lies is not hamstringing.

[OFKU0]

Originally posted by ARTelevision


My sense of how diplomacy is best conducted today is from a strong position of pragmatic self-interest and not from any sort of internationalist agenda.

If I'm reading this correctly then, U.S foreign policy is best preserved insularly without regard for any other country or imput they may have to the contrary. In other words, the U.S is above reproach and doesn't care about anything but their singular self- interests regardless as to what other nations think.

I think that is a dangerous standard and shows little respect for other nations and their cultures. Last time I looked at a globe, the U.S was part of it, not a seperate entity with the world revolving around it.

[onetime2]

Interesting what everyone is reading into Art's words. I read nothing in his words that said there isn't flexibility in approaching from a point of pragmatic self interest but that should be the base to work from. It's most certainly the way that virtually every other country works from.

[ARTelevision]

Yes. Every nation on earth has always operated and continues to operate on a basis of pragmatic self-interest.

It's always fascinating to hear idealism though.
The problem with it is no one could ever run a country that way.
So the best we can do with this sort of notion is to listen to it, understand that at its best it is well-intentioned, and see it very slowly being incorporated into global and cultural evolution on a long historic timescale. In the meantime, there are nations operating as they always have.

Impatience is a characteristic of the well-intentioned idealist and is forgivable.
Idealism at the service of agenda-driven politics is simply self-serving rhetoric.

[Wax_off]

Originally posted by ARTelevision
Idealism at the service of agenda-driven politics is simply self-serving rhetoric.

You're talking about the current administration, right?

[ARTelevision]

No.

[Yakk]

Originally posted by ARTelevision
Yes. Every nation on earth has always operated and continues to operate on a basis of pragmatic self-interest.

Prove it. What interest did outlawing slavery within the British Empire serve Britian? I guess it made the British feel morally superior in some small way.

However, if you define "pragmatic self interest" that broadly, your statement means basically nothing: it says countries do what they think is best.

It's always fascinating to hear idealism though.

The problem with it is no one could ever run a country that way.

You mean, run only off ideals? Bah, of course it wouldn't work.

At the same time, you try to run a nation without ideals, and I'll sell you the broklyn bridge.

Purely rational decision making doesn't work. Without ideals or emotions to decide how to weigh the various possibilities, you can spend forever listing features of a decision, and never reach a conclusion. It is like trying to do math without axioms: it just doesn't work.

Ideals are nessicarry to decide which of two alternatives are "best". And, quite often, some of those ideals are distilled long-term self interest.

[ARTelevision]

The first statement is self-evident and needs no elucidation.
You are interpreting self-interest in your own idiosyncratic way.

The rest of your statements issue from misconstruing my stated positions which clearly included and allowed for the addition of doses of idealism as realistically feasible and also accepted the processes of idealism into the long-term future of world and cultural evolution.

[Wax_off]

But back to the original topic, remember that the plan as laid out by the Bush administration was "we will go in, remove Saddam and the Iraqi people will greet us with open arms while we rebuild the country." The second part of that hasn't happened and seems to be getting farther and farther from happening. It seems to me that what has gone wrong in Iraq is that we failed to plan for anything not working out in the most rosy way. All the attention was focused on the first part and none on what we would do afterwards. There was no exit stratergy (sic).

Now we're in this kind of sticky situation there. We can't leave, but more and more we're not welcome there. What to do? Perhaps it was a mistake to remove Saddam in the first place. I've traveled in third world countries a bit and something I've observed is that 'freedom' is not held in as high regard as it is here. Brutality, murder and political repression seem to be part of normal life. Example: In Guatemala, General Rios Mont was narrowly defeated in the last general election. He was the head of the millitary coup that started the Guatemalan civil war and killed hundreds of thousands of people. But the people respect his strength, not his dedication to 'freedom'.
So how does the US deal with that mind set? We're in a region where people respect strength and see freedom as a power void that needs to be filled. Yes, that should change, but it's not going to change in one day or one year. Probably not even in one decade. Effectivly what we've done is replace one brutal dictator with another, us. And when we leave (if we ever leave) we will be relaced with yet another brutal regime.

So to sum up this rambling post for which I'm sure I will be roundly attacked, it seems like what has gone wrong in Iraq is a failure to understand the situation through the eyes of anyone other than ourselves. Rules that apply here do not apply in other parts of the world. The way we see things is not the only way, not even the best way, just what works for us, and we shouldn't expect it to work for everyone else. We're trying to shove democracy down the throats of the Iraqis and there is no doubt in my mind that it will not work.

'Nuff said.

[ARTelevision]

Thanks for your thoughtful extended views. There's much to agree with in what you say. Our differences are a matter of degree. Your position is an important one to hear as is mine. Together, we represent a sampling of the current views held by people of good will. I'm sure we can find ways to work toward ensuring the survivability of the cultures that support and value our lives as well as ways of minimizing the threats from those who value only something inconceivably narrow.

You and I are, after all, on the same side of history.