click here for "neo-neocon"

I have read some of the things posted at this blog; and wish to make my views known. I'm still a liberal. This is an economic adjective and not a military strategy.. The "change" in thinking caused by 9/11; cited by the blogger are unfortunate. The liberalism I still embrace is the LBJ war on poverty, however LBJ prosecuted a war in Southeast Asia that was flawed from the beginning. Read Stanley Karnow's book, "VietNam" to see how LBJ had position papers written that predicted failure in that war before the big escalation following the Gulf of Tonkin. Warfare was necessary in WWII, because we were facing nation-states following a Militarist policy. Large sacale set-piece strategy proved our undoing in VietNam. The insurgency there was similar to our Iraq situation. Long military operations of an open-ended nature are inherently unpopular to the democratic sensibility. The home front in the United States in totally reliable when victory can be percieved. Putting the national prestige on the line for something as mercurical as a democratic Iraq will wear down the home front at an accelerated rate. This is not "cut-and-run", it is pragmatic and reality based. When all the bleeding is limited to class, whether "all-volunteer", or draft based; and sacrifices aren't made to put the whole population on a war footing, we can't afford to fool ourselves. The invasion and occupation of Iraq is a military adventure, an "unnecessary" war. We have a President changing his own vocabulary, speaking of Islamic "fascists". Since we were facing actual facism in WWII; it is as though he might appropriate the goodwill the citizen has for that war for his. 9/11 was a Pearl Harbor. Its perpetrator is not a nation, but an idea, of Islamic theocracy. We are in Iraq trying to compel a secular society. All the pundits who compare the current plight there with the 18th century history of our republic's founding make the most tenditious argument. This is a singular happening. Whether Iraq will establish a secular, liberal republic, must be their undertaking. Forcing this from the outside, by a Christian Nation falls into precisely the trap that serves the Islamic Republic insurgency best. We are viewed as crusaders. By fighting this unilaterally we have fomented the worst PR. I believe George W. Bush is a decent guy. This war program in its current configuration will not outlive his term in office. The next presidential election campaign will be a referendum on the war. The unpopular war promises to make wholesale change the most attractive position to promote. As much as Bush tries to make it appear we are just holding the Iraqis' hands until they get the hang of self government, he does both sides a disservice. If Iraq wants a Shiite theocracy, we must face the fact a try to work with them on something approaching a positive future. Our history with Iran makes this a remote probability. The hostage crisis in Iran cemented a negative opinion of the Islamic republic. We need to get on a learning curve of how to get along with these people. It looks like the future in Iraq; the balance of power in the middle-east will not tolerate a permanent American military presence as the governing principle. Our support os Israel must not waver, our prestige and the value of our word won't allow for that. The US could do much worse than a President John Murtha.