WaPo - "Big Bang Theory In Ruins" (neocon MiddleEast gambit implodes)

[Tin Man]

E.J. Dione absolutely nails the failed neocon experiment in Iraq, and suggests a strategic response for Democrats to foil Republican "cut and run" framing of the debate on continued US presence in Iraq.

-snip-
But then there was the delightful promise of what American success in Iraq could achieve. "Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of jihad," Cheney said. "Moderates throughout the region would take heart, and our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced."
...
Today, with Israeli troops battling on their northern and southern borders, with Iran ignoring calls for negotiations on nuclear weapons, with Baghdad in flames and with many of Iraq's moderates living in fear, those Cheney sentences stand as the most telling indictment of the administration's failures.
...
That is what the American debate should be about, but those in charge of Republican campaigns this year have another idea. They have hit upon the brilliant strategy of pushing any serious discussion of the failure of American foreign policy past Election Day. For the next 3 1/2 months, they want the choice before the voters to be binary: staying the course and being "tough," or breaking with President Bush's policy and being "soft." There are just two options on the ballot, they say: firmness or "cut and run."
...
The case for reducing our commitment to Iraq in the interest of other and larger foreign policy purposes -- has anyone noticed the growing mess in Afghanistan? -- is built on a compelling proposition: that the administration made a huge bet on Iraq and it lost. American voters can decide to keep the gamble going, to risk more lives and money, and hope that something turns up. Or they can decide that this gamble will never deliver the winnings that those who took it on our behalf promised.
-snip-

I highly recommend reading the entire editoral; it can be found at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/13/AR2006071301666.html

[izzie]

1. I think it has really set it back.

Before people in the Middle East were seeing the value of elections and ruling them selfs in a slow movement that fitted in to their culture. Now they are forced to take sides and I guess I would lean to wards the people who may blow me up to keep them happy. Like it was more peaceful under this or that ruler than what we are in now. We are dealing with a culture we do not understand and I do not think you can force Western culture on them. If they like stuff they will adopted it in to their society. Before they were doing a lot of that with much more mild terrorist actions. In Iran we set up a ruler and they did not like it and Afghans had the zealots take over but that was a freak thing. I still think that if we had just keep out of it in 50 years most of the Middle Eat would be ruling them self.

[fasttense]

2. The sad part is this neocon theory really wasn't based on

any facts, studies or even simple intelligence gathering. It seems to me it was based on a feeling and not much more. The US has disrupted a region, turned the differing factions against each other, and has set up the building blocks for WW III based all on a feeling, a dream, a hope. Were these neocons ever in touch with reality?

[enough]

3. Not based on facts, but on a specious theory.

from the article:

snip>

Consider Vice President Cheney's address before the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Aug. 26, 2002, one of the earliest major public arguments the administration made for war. The lead of the news stories was Cheney's claim that there was "no doubt" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was prepared to use them. "The risks of inaction are far greater than the risk of action," Cheney declared.

But then there was the delightful promise of what American success in Iraq could achieve. "Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of jihad," Cheney said. "Moderates throughout the region would take heart, and our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced."

snip>

[Jackpine Radical]

5. I don't even think it was an honest theory.

They just figured they could bull their way in, maintain order with our overwhelming military might, build permanent bases, and capture the oil. "Democracy" is a code phrase for "American colony."

[Tin Man]

8. Yep, the PNAC 'plan for the MiddleEast was nothing more than

Yep, the PNAC 'plan' for the MiddleEast might have well been formulated in an opium den, in which consideration for the ambiguities and complexities of the ME all went up with the smoke, leaving the imbibers floating through a sotted serenity, in which anything was readily attainable - and winning the GWOT was a simple as 'floating through the keyhole' into Iraq.

Now we are witnessing the failure of the policy, as the ME grows more dangerous, not less. The assumptions upon which the PNAC 'plan' for Iraq was formulated have been revealed as simplistic and naive. They placed their bet on what they falsely believed to be a sure thing, and proceeded to roll snake-eyes and crap out.

This administration's admonition to "stay the course in Iraq" is simply another roll of the dice, a gambler's quest to reverse his losses in a "double or nothing" type wager.

[rodeodance]

4. yes, most of politics is down to yes/no: black/white!

......There are just two options on the ballot, they say: firmness or "cut and run."

[TreasonousBastard]

6. The bastids went in to set up a...

central Mideast base and Iraq was really the only choice-- an educated and industrious population sitting on a huge puddle of oil with a dictator nobody liked or trusted.

So, we added to the mix the original neocon idea of having a brand new country to rebuild in the image of true, libertarian capitalism.

It just goes to show ya why ideologues, in this case neocons and libertarians, should NEVER, EVER, be trusted to govern or be entrusted with anything that is actually important.

Let them sit back in their think tanks and whine all they weant-- just don't let them out of their cages.

("And the most important thing is NEVER feed them after midnight!")

[Briar]

7. "Installing a democratic government

in Iraq would force a new dawn."

That assumes a sincere commitment to real democracy, respecting the free choice of the people, whatever it might be. Holding democratic elections have done neither the Palestinians nor the Lebanese any good in the eyes of the US and Israel. I suspect that the neocons never intended to install a democratic government in Iraq, just a puppet one.