I don’t think that the fact that a change in our ME policies was necessary, automatically meant that we should preemptively attack any country that we thought could eventually pose a threat to us or might harbor terrorists. That rationale has led to a new low in worldwide opinion of imperial Americans and also was the greatest recruiting tool that al queda ever could have hoped for. It also led to the total destruction of Iraq as a unified nation, with hardships for Iraqis becoming even worse under American occupation than it was under Saddam.

There was no al queda in Iraq before we took out Saddam- now there’s a flourishing organization. So you can’t say that because our previous policies were disjointed and unsuccessful that we should continue a policy that has been just disasterous.

The author conveniently leaves out the repercussions -actual and potential that we are facing with our current policy.

I read this and found that it sums up my thoughts pretty well and perhaps will explain what I mean when I say that no one on the Dem side is offering a realistic plan. What I’m getting at is that I supported the Iraq invasion because I felt that it was a needed departure from past foreign policy (which has been flawed under both GOP and Dem administrations). The failure of the invasion to secure a stable Iraq still hasn’t altered my opinion that we need to rethink our policies and if anyone has a serious proposal to do so then I’m all ears. Obama saying that it’s all about ‘talking’ doesn’t really explain how he would persuade the bad characters to change their ways, and Hillary basically taking the Bush lite approach doesn’t do it for me either.

I, myself, believe the threat is real, but don’t think that it requires the kind of resources we are expending to fight it. The invasion of Iraq was an enormous blunder that most everyone agrees threatens to destabilize the whole region. It is a war without end that is draining our prosperity and wasting the lives of our best and brightest. Iraq may be ungovernable and uninhabitable for the next 20 years, and in the meantime we are draining resources from our defense and from our children’s futures.

I disagree, although it somewhat resembles what clearly IS the biggest blunder: US intervention in the Great European War in 1917. Bush’s revival of Woodrow Wilson’s utopian “nation-building” nonsense, after having explicitly rejected it during the 2000 campaign, is simply an echo of that unfortunate episode.

Actually, Kim, some on the left do deny and/or downplay the dangers of terrorism and even those who take it seriously don’t offer a rational alternative in how to deal with it.

Ron Paul has an interesting essay on fear and it’s political use and the loss of individual rights.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst073007.htm

The Fear Factor

July 30, 2007

While fear itself is not always the product of irrationality, once experienced it tends to lead away from reason, especially if the experience is extreme in duration or intensity. When people are fearful they tend to be willing to irrationally surrender their rights.

Thus, fear is a threat to rational liberty. The psychology of fear is an essential component of those who would have us believe we must increasingly rely on the elite who manage the apparatus of the central government.

The statement “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” has been attributed to Benjamin Franklin. It is clear, people seek out safety and security when they are in a state of fear, and it is the result of this psychological state that often leads to the surrender of liberty.

As Washington moves towards it summer legislative recess, indications of fear are apparent. Things seem similar to the days before the war in Iraq. Prior to the beginning of the war, several government officials began using phrases like “we don’t want the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud,” and they spoke of drone airplanes being sent to our country to do us great harm.
…
It is incumbent on a great nation to remain confident, if it wishes to remain free. We need not be ignorant to real threats to our safety, against which we must remain vigilant. We need only to banish to the ash heap of history the notion that we ought to be ruled by our fears and those who use them to enhance their own power.

CS – Don’t fear Ron Paul is a true Liberatian/Conservative. At his Presidential site Paul2008 his third video is his speech at the National Right to Life Convention. Wanna bet his speech stood on his principles as a physician and his opposition to abortion(Romney/Juliani??)

Their analysis is as worthless as the crap coming out of the AEI, and should be recognized as such. O’Hanlon and Pollack have been wrong about the war and continue to be wrong, so stop listening to them.

Shaun’s post, which most commenters seem to have forgotten, pointed out the glaring absence of political progress in Iraq and how that issue was ignored in the Hanlon op-ed.

Yet, the question of what kind of Iraqi government we are enabling ,should be what we discuss, even if the surge is 100% successful. Sectarian reconcilitation is, of course, central, and the failures of the Iraqi government in this regard demote the effectivenss of US military actions in reducing violence in Baghdad to being merely a humanitarian undertaking. Humanitarian concerns can not and should not be dismissed, but when one objective is substitured for another, we should at least take note.,
Aside from sectarian reconcilitation, the Maliki governement is failing on other fronts. Billions (with a B) of dollars are simply disappearing due to corruption, while the percentage of malnourished children rises and hospitals run out of supplies.
When we weigh the pros and cons of our presence, we should be also looking at the kind of governance we are enabling in the process. How the Iraqi government is using the window of opportunity the surge is supposed to provide is absolutely viital in ou deliberations as to what to do next.

On the question of withdrawal, while one side aims at shooting down plans for withdrawal, it has nothing to offer as an alternative except indefinite commitment to staying in Iraq. It doesn’t even address the most sober withdrawal plans., Clinton, for example, has a very realistic plan in place, which is so realistic that it may well draw ire from those impatient to get out quickly.

If we can’t get serious on this topic and forget the partisan obfuscations, then we are in deep, deep trouble. Judging by this tread, that is the case.

Op-ed co-author O’Hanlon, testifying today before a House subcommittee, appears to have backed down considerably from his rose-colored view in The Times, according to a brief post from Matt Yglesias.

Hmmmm.

Add to that a government that is blind to any but its own self-serving and corrupt aims, what do we honestly see for a stable future for this country? Are we focusing on the right goals? Any real progress will have to include a reasonable standard of living for the average Iraqi.

The only in-depth interview he has given so far was to Hugh Hewitt, described by fellow conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan, as someone having no interest in the truth, only propaganda.

Glen Greenwald of Salon has written seeking an interview. No reply to date, and unlikely to be one any time soon.

Um, except that when I just clicked over to Salon and read Glen Greenwald’s post about this, he clearly did receive a reply- in fact there was an exchange of several e-mails. The response basically said that Petraeus has given over 100 interviews, so the one with Hewitt was hardly exclusive. Greenwald was told that his name would be added to the list of interested interviewers (surprise, he wasn’t able to demand an immediate interview in the interest of “fairness”!) Then when Greenwald was asked repeatedly what he felt was slanted about the Hewitt interview, he seemed to forget to address that question.

Well, thanks for filling me in, anyway, Truflo. It’s always informative to see how the game of shooting the messenger is being adapted to changing situations. Now I understand the latest version: Petraeus’ testimony is henceforth completely tainted because 1 out of 100 interviews he gave was to a right winger and he refuses to take time out of commanding the troops in Iraq to grant equal time to a left winger.

The problem is there are no serious people left in this administration. O’Hanlon and Pollock’s piece is noting more than the usual Friedman argument- six more months and then lets see. That, by the way, represents, if troop deaths are to continue as they have been, another 456 dead American soldiers.

Volunteer army or not, no one should be asked to throw away their lives for a mission fewer and fewer Americans believe in or even understand anymore.

In the meantime, in case you didn’t notice, the political solution just went on holiday.

But I disagree with your premise that there have been no serious alternatives offered- if you watched the youtube debate, Sen Biden has the most informed, realistic alternative, that continues to be ignored by many on both sides. BTW, staying there full force is impossible to maintain- so the present course is no more realistic than a full pullout.

The only in-depth interview he has given so far was to Hugh Hewitt, described by fellow conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan, as someone having no interest in the truth, only propaganda.

Glen Greenwald of Salon has written seeking an interview. No reply to date, and unlikely to be one any time soon.

Fox is his go-to network, Hannity and Colmes his go-to talking heads.

Rather than pandering to the 28%, he needs to be open and truthful with the 68%.

Its a pity, because he seems a decent guy, the best commander available, and honest. God only knows what kind of interference he is having to deal with.

Kim: I don’t recall seeing much lately from the far leftists who claim that there is NO terrorist threat; I wasn’t trying to claim that there are a lot of people like that or that they have a lot of support, but nonetheless they do exist. And it still remains that the more moderate center-leftists who oppose Bush’s policies without offering serious alternatives will risk being seen as unserious about the threat as well.

It’s hard to see your opponents proven right. If the Iraq War had turned out well I guess I could have accepted it, but it would have been awfully difficult. Therefore, while I might cringe at each failure, a little voice inside me says “At least you were proven right.” But perhaps that’s just me.

It isn’t just you.

But the real point here is that my motives for making whatever argument I make shouldn’t matter. “You just want America to be humiliated” fails the most basic test of constructive debate. Likewise “You’re just an authoritarian bigot.”

Adults should be able to have a good argument without resort to cheap tactics like this.