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.

Broken hands on broken ploughs,

Broken treaties, broken vows,

Broken pipes, broken tools,

People bending broken rules.

Hound dog howling, bull frog croaking,

Everything is broken.

BOB DYLAN

`

Broken tires on broken cars

Broken servers for broken czars

Broken House, broken Senate

Broken laws, broken tenet

Clown cons jowling, court jesters jokin'

Everything is broken

SONOFABASTARD

Even if the surge worked, all I have read about the situation in Iraq is that we would have to be there, providing security, etc., for at least 5 to 7 years. I know General Zinni said we could not withdraw immediately, but I do not see how the American people will put up with another 5 to 7 years at $100 billion per year and several thousand killed and wounded soldiers. I think that the warmongers really expected to have a military presence a la Korea and Germany in Iraq for the next 50 years, but this was not well articulated at the time of the war. Our media really let us down on that, because that was the understanding that people like Wolfowitz, Feith, Bill Kristol, the Kagans, and other neocons had - a short war followed by a long occupation. There was a lot of obfuscation, but I always had the feeling that the people proposing the war were not at all fazed by a long-term occupation, even a long-term drain on American blood and treasure.

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.

When you tend to "over-estimate" (exaggerate) threats (internal or external) for political reasons rather than assessing them realistically, maybe everything tends to look bigger than it really is through that lens...

You raise a lot of big issues and topics, to which I could do no justice in a comment thread, but I will say this. I do not envy the person who has to take the baton from W; he or she will have to confront such a dizzying array of absolute disasters -- military, international, fiscal, constitutional, and more.

The degree to which this President has set us back as a country and people is absolutely mind-boggling. Last night I watched for the second time a little bit of the documentary "Journeys With George" (in which Speaker Pelosi's daughter, Alexandra, follows George W. around during his run for president in 2000), and where I once found the film somewhat funny, if a bit sad, it now depresses me beyond words to see how these characters actually won the presidency.

Just one nit and I'm not sure how much of a difference it will make at this point since Americans recognize it for what it is but what's going on in Iraq is an occupation and not a war.

If we peel away another percent or two from the support by changing this one word during the national conversation then it will be worth it.

I would really like someone to ask the Presidunce, "Do you intend to stay in Iraq forever?" Assuming his answer to be some variation of "no," I would like the follow-up to be, "Saying that we will not stay in Iraq forever means that we intend to leave at sometime in the future. THAT is a timeline. If our enemy knows we're going to leave at some point, won't they just 'wait us out' until we leave and then, wreak havoc in the country - and if so - how is that different from announcing a timeline of sometime in 2008?"

If, on the other hand, he's honest and says, "Yes, we intend to stay in Iraq forever," he is forced to reveal his TRUE intentions and the American public will finally see Bush for the warmongering imbecile he is! I've been waiting a long time for someone in the press to ask this simple, salient question and then, hold "Dear Leader's" feet to the fire until he gives "We, the people" a straight (honest?) answer. "Cold-spell in Hell," you say? Maybe, but we can dream, can't we?

Do you intend to stay in Iraq forever?" Assuming his answer to be some variation of "no,

But there's no reason for him to answer any variation of "No" The original plan, still in place. is that a compliant friendly government will be in control in Iraq and we'll have permanent bases there to replace the ones we cleared in Saudi Arabia. Remember how long it took to amass troops on the Kuwait/Iraq border. Think of the time we'll save by having 150,000 troops permanently stationed in Iraq. From there they can influence the entire region.

To stay is to win. To leave is to lose. Nothing else matters.

The disconnect between the Iraq war and any strategic objective is intuitively clear to the electorate. If the American people thought we would get anywhere by 'winning' in Iraq, they'd be more supportive of staying. But it's obviously pointless.

Iraq is not a nation of earnest proto-democrats yearning to create a Western-style secular republic, where Arab Madisons, Jeffersons, and Hamiltons were only held back by evil Saddam. The more we learn about the 'reality on the ground' the more it becomes clear that no amount of American military and ignorance will overcome the factional and cultural contentions that lead to violence and brutality there.

People were willing to stay the course in 1864 because winning meant the preservation of the Union and the resolution of the issue of slavery which had troubled the nation since its founding. People aren't willing to stay in Iraq because winning has no definition, and delivers nothing of value to America. What's the best case? Does anyone honestly envision a day twenty years on when Iraq, free of American occupation, stands as a bastion of stability, moderation and democratic secularism?

Kagan, Krauthammer, et al. sound like children on a beach, loudly trumpeting their success in building their sand castle, even as the waves of incoming tide splash against their feet.