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.