Andrew Sullivan: "Bush's Final Gamble: Giving Iraq a Dictator?"

[DeepModem Mom]

London Times: Bush's final gamble: giving Iraq a dictator?
Andrew Sullivan

The news was buried in a New York Times story last week but it confirmed what others in the Washington chattering classes have been observing lately.

The context is that the White House has been inviting outsiders in to the Oval Office to discuss strategy in Iraq. The new chief of staff Josh Bolten has apparently been trying to pierce the intellectual cocoon in which the president comfortably resides. Bush family consigliere James Baker has already been asked to rescue the president’s failed Iraq policy.

But last week the new nugget: an anonymous “military affairs expert” attended a White House briefing and reported: “Senior administration officials have acknowledged to me that they are considering alternatives other than democracy. Everybody in the administration is being quite circumspect, but you can sense their own concern that this is drifting away from democracy.”...

***

This conservative caucus never liked the neocon argument for removing Saddam. They didn’t like nation building and didn’t believe that Iraqis were capable of democracy. They wanted to remove a WMD threat but, most of all, they wanted to strike terror into the heart of the enemy by showing what US military might could do.

Depose Saddam, remove the weapons, install a client dictator and leave as much rubble behind: that was the game plan. It would deter the Iranians and leave a light military footprint....If the Republicans are to recover by November 2008, let alone November 2006, they have to get Iraq behind them. They have to show progress or provide some credible strategy for victory that is not simply more of the gruelling same....Before too long a compliant US-backed dictator may not seem like such a bad option in Mesopotamia. And I feel Rumsfeld will be telling himself he knew it all along.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2320091,00.html

[survivor999]

1. Why don't they just put Saddam back?

[ananda]

2. lol

Well, Saddam -was- their man at one time....

[Jim__]

5. That's exactly what they'll do.

But he'll have a different name. They'll call the dictatorship a democarcy; and the MSM will fall all over themselves praising bush's amazing victory in Iraq.

[kenny blankenship]

3. I thought things were going great over there--not right after all?

[Autonomy]

4. Rumsfeld didn't "know it all along"

but I did. I also know they're a bunch of assholes.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. Plan is a non-starter.

Whomever we install will last about two weeks after we pull out. And that is a generous estimate.

[mdpod]

8. Exactly. Two weeks is a bit generous. What a disaster!!

[Cha]

7. There's no Democracy

in the US(Shredding the Constitution)and that democracy in Iraq thing is pale. Now bush can get out there and say.."We're staying the course, adapt and win, Iraq has a dictator who will keep it under control just like sadam did, ooooops, hehheheheh" :+

[gratuitous]

9. What a load of horseshit

Bareback Andy is just making it up as he goes along. What's with this statement: "The conservative caucus never liked the neocon argument for removing Saddam." Really, Andy? And who said any such think from August 2002 through May 2003? Anyone? Can you point to one public statement from a highly placed GOP source who said he didn't like the argument for invading Iraq? I'll settle for just one, even though your statement implies there was some kind of debate going on in Republican circles. One public statement, Andy.

Then there's the canard of "showing what US military might could do." Uh huh. How's that working out for you, Andrew? The Taliban doesn't seem very impressed with US military might. Neither does the Iraqi resistance. Hezbollah doesn't seem fazed even by US military might by proxy. Gee, you think all us peaceniks warning about the limits of US military might four years ago might have been right all along? And now it's all fallen apart, as we predicted. Not because it was done for the wrong reasons or the right reasons, but because it was the wrong thing to do, period.

And now you want to scurry away from this incredible mess, and whine about how those bad old neocons just messed it up for everyone. Horseshit, Andy. You wanted it, you got it. Doesn't taste quite so savory as it did in the heady days of shock and awe, does it?

[kurth]

10. Not "Dictator". It's Unitary Executive!

Working pretty well in the U.S.

[opihimoimoi]

11. So far these clueless bunch of assholes have been WRONG resulting

in much treasure and resources down the hole, too many casualties/dead, etc, and no positive effect after 5 years.

The GOP is a MISERABLE FAILURE in ALL RESPECTS: They backed up BUSH which sez it all....They deserve to resign en masse.

[ljm2002]

12. "drifting away from democracy.”

They were never that close to democracy, in spite of the purple-ink fingers that the GOP loved to display. They love their quick victories, that they can symbolize and push through the media. But when it comes to the work required for the long haul, they quickly fold.

The U.S., on the other hand, could fairly be described as "drifting away from democracy." We, at least, came somewhat close in the first place.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MidwestTransplant]

14. You can't form a successful central government no matter

what now. How would a dictator solve anything? I will only make the Sunis more pissed assuming it's a Shiite or vice versa. There is no real security force to instill law. It would take an outside force far larger than ours to really bring order there (assuming it is even remotely possible).