Jonathan Chait ducks the real issue

In a recent column (A Liberal Hawk Strikes Back) Jonathan Chait would like us all to think that the Bush and his team's incompetence is the only reason the invasion of Iraq as sunk into the quagmire we find ourselves in. By keeping the focus on the many questionable decisions made in the course of this invasion, Chait can avoid the more difficult (for him) issue: was the neo-con idea of transforming the Middle East by force an idea which set US Foreign Policy on a new and useful course or a sophomoric fantasy devised by a close knit group who exchanged endless white papers and memos congratulating each other on their cleverness?

I find compelling the Enlightenment idea that societies progress at different rates and that, as they progress, new forms of government become possible. Democracy can not survive until conditions are right. Thus, I find his comparison of Iraq with Bosnia/Serbia/Croatia in the 1990s dubious. That region had the precursors to democracy in the past. The collapse into civil war was recent and reversible. The West intervened in fairly quick order and so the society had not lost what was needed to support Democracy.

Iraq had none of these advantages. The decade of sanctions imposed after Saddam's invasion of Kuwait had effectively destroyed such minimal progress Iraq had made toward real democracy in spite of Saddam and his dictatorial predecessor. Iraq was not fertile ground for the neo-con's plan and anyone paying attention could have discovered this.

Aside: It is sad that the Neo-Con fantasy required democracy in Iraq. Otherwise the might have usefully spent time and effort advancing democracy in the Middle Eastern states which have made the most progress: Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon.

It is long past time for Jonathan Chait and his fellow neo-cons to grow up and realize they have both destroyed Iraq and very nearly destroyed the War on Terrorism.

An Interesting Thought

(found on correntewire)

Thought for the day

Until now, every generation of Americans has traded safety for liberty. From the Lexington Green to the Normandy beaches, from the Sons of Liberty to the Freedom Riders, it has been part of the American narrative that risks are taken to expand freedom, not freedoms sacrificed to avoid risk.

Only in this generation—only on our watch—has the march reversed. Instead of swapping safety for liberty, this generation under the leadership of George W. Bush has chosen to trade liberties for safety.
—Robert Parry

Memorial Day, 2006

Today is the day we remember those who have given the ultimate sacrifice and fallen in our wars.
I have nothing brilliant to add so here is a collection of articles and posts I think are worth reading this day.

Daily Kos: They were Soldiers Once
On the effects on our troups when asked to do something wrong.

Palaima: What's the truth of war? (Austin-American Statesman Commentary) On how difficult it is for a soldier to describe to a civilian their particular experience.

Doonesbury is listing the names of our soldiers who have died this year.

The truley horrific thing about this war is our soldiers are dieing for little more than Hubris. Our President believed the siren song of the Neo-Cons; they were wrong.

I'll finish with a quote from Shakespeare, Henry V:

BATES. He may show what outward courage he will;
but I believe, as cold a night as 'tis,
he could wish himself in Thames up to the neck;
and so I would he were, and I by him, at all adventures,
so we were quit here.

KING HENRY. By my troth, I will speak my conscience of the King:
I think he would not wish himself anywhere but where he is.

BATES. Then I would he were here alone;
so should he be sure to be ransomed, and a many poor men's lives saved.

KING HENRY. I dare say you love him not so ill to wish him here
alone, howsoever you speak this, to feel other men's minds;
methinks I could not die anywhere so contented as in the King's
company, his cause being just and his quarrel honourable.

WILLIAMS. That's more than we know.

BATES. Ay, or more than we should seek after;
for we know enough if we know we are the King's subjects.
If his cause be wrong, our obedience to the King wipes the crime of it out of us.

WILLIAMS. But if the cause be not good, the King himself hath a
heavy reckoning to make when all those legs and arms and heads,
chopp'd off in a battle, shall join together at the latter day
and cry all 'We died at such a place'- some swearing, some crying
for a surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some
upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left. I
am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle; for how
can they charitably dispose of anything when blood is their
argument? Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black
matter for the King that led them to it; who to disobey were
against all proportion of subjection.

Not One (more) Dime?

Here is a very radical proposal for cleaning up the mess DeLay and Gingritch have made of the Republican Party.

Not One Dime

It tries to fix the root cause of our current crop of political corruption in a quite novel way.

I doubt it would pass the Federal Congress but it might serve as an extreme position which would enable some sort of compromise which could pass.