Letters to the Editor
DCLaw1
Published Letters: 996 Editor's Choice: 2
-
my theory
[Read the article: Iraq: American public opinion vs. a "small but powerful group"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not one to ever discount the possibility that Bush genuinely believes in his absurd rhetoric, but I have a theory about what the "advisers" around him, who are essentially calling the shots, are thinking.
At this point, I truly do believe that the White House's Surge supporters and speechwriters realize that the War in Iraq is doomed to ultimate failure no matter their efforts. Yes, I'm aware of the lengths to which neoconservatives will go to actually disbelieve reality, but at this point I think the cynical, political, Machiavellian lizard brain in all of them has awakened and dutifully kicked into another mode, though they continue to wear the public face of belief in their crusade.
I think Rove, Cheney, and a handful of other very intelligent and very clever White House power-players have privately accepted the inevitability of disaster in Iraq, and now are demanding the same hope and commitment to that experiment simply to stave off total collapse until someone else (preferably a Democrat) is President.
If Bush cannot be a foreign policy revolutionary causing the unprecedented transformation of the Middle East into a Jeffersonian Eden, then he must be cast instead as a foreign policy revolutionary with a glorious vision that was betrayed by the weak-willed and destroyed by his successor. He will become a political martyr, a subject of crass historical revision even within his lifetime, a tragic hero suffering from the curse of possessing resolve and brilliance far superior to most others. When Iraq falls completely to pieces, his followers will only get louder in their indignation and hatred of Bush's "enemies."
As with all things to these fanatics, protection of the Leader's legacy and the rhetorical purity of his Cause is paramount and easily more important than actual accomplishment of the things he set out to do. That's why I say the one's truly calling the shots realize where Iraq is heading, and have shifted all their energies and efforts into delaying the inevitable in a fashion that best protects the legacy of their Leader and belief system.
-
The Oil Argument
[Read the article: Iraq: American public opinion vs. a "small but powerful group"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I do think that saying all of this can be traced back to "the oil" is a bit facile. After the invasion, during the seat-of-the-pants efforts at creating some kind of provisional government and military force in Iraq, there was actually a significant feud within the administration over whether to nationalize or completely privatize Iraq's oil resources. There was no grand unifying theory on how to handle the oil situation, and it continues to remain a very complex question.
Thing is, with Saddam, a relatively stable dictator with solid control over his population and political structure, there was literally no possibility of our not continuing to have access to Iraq's oil, which is in Iraq's interest to sell, obviously.
If the argument is that we needed control and a presence there during the great weening of oil, the vast outpacing of supply by demand that many predict is accelerating now, one has to wonder why we would need to invade and occupy so far in advance, but also how turning Iraq into a parliamentary democracy could possibly result in our having any greater control over or access to Iraq's oil as the winnowing worsens.
I could go on, but there are simply far too many problems and inconsistencies with the unifying oil theory of why we're there. Oil obviously plays a tremendous role in the Administration's general desire to democratize the entire region and in turn undermine OPEC, etc., but the reasons also extend to Israel and the general primacy of the Mid-East and Central Asia in geostrategy and the realignment of global power in the post-Cold War era.
-
LWM
[Read the article: Iraq: American public opinion vs. a "small but powerful group"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not sure I meant the dual objectives in the way you think. I'm just talking about the Iraq situation, not general domestic or international dominance. Of course, they sought dominance all along, as it is in their nature not just to win and succeed, but to eradicate opposition completely.
However, I think it's pretty clear to most people, perhaps even to the most dutiful Bush followers, that their dream of "permanent" GOP majorities and total destruction of the vestiges of New Deal liberalism has been crushed (or at least postponed for a significant amount of time).
-
LWM,
[Read the article: Iraq: American public opinion vs. a "small but powerful group"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To achieve the global military dominance (empire), they must first achieve domestic political dominance over those who espouse Svensker's excellent restatement of the founders' intent wrt to foreign policy. If they were as effective at the former as they have been at the latter, this might all be moot.
To me, the most amazing aspect about the last five years is how dramatically perceptions of Bush, the GOP, and the Iraq War have shifted. I still recall, quite vividly, Bush supporters telling me with voices positively soaked in derision and condescension that Bush and the Republicans were unstoppable in the War on Terra, and that Democrats would be permanently marginalized to the minority.
How I wish I could speak with those people again, face to face. Sure, the media continues to give the Administration far more benefit of the doubt than it deserves, but there's no mistaking this precipitous fall of the once-invincible. If you think about the mood and political climate from September 2001 through summer of 2003, it really is breathtaking.