Except its people like Bob Herbert who are the ones who recoil in horror at the kind of people we'd have to recruit in order to do the "human intellegence" necessary.

And I agree, the idea that "the Iraq debacle" is an axiom on which all further discussion should be based is false. First people like Herbert need to first demonstrate why it is a debacle, (is that now the prefered alternative to "quagmire"?) otherwise their arguments are based in their personal fantasies and opinions not facts.

The war in Iraq is a debacle to people like Bob Herbert, precisely because it has gone well and is pointing towards a better future in the Middle East.

So it must be decried at all cost.

Bob Herbert wailed like a baby without its rattle when the Berlin Wall fell.

1) The President utterly failed to communicate the rationale for war. It was not presented as the necessary end to 10 years of blockade and reneged agreements; nor were the human rights issues sufficiently raised. WMD's was the mantra, and since they were never found it has presented the war with a problem. These issues matter - LBJ handed the anti-war movement with a big boost when discrepencies were found in the events that lead to the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. Likewise President Bush boosted the anti-war movement because of his mishandling of his justification. This has caused an unnecessary erosion of morale.

2) True.

3) By OJ's own standards, the President has caused many problems with the occupation as with his statements about the length of the occupation and failure to distinguish between Sunni and other factions. This cannot solely be blamed at an operational level as the occupation was based on conditions imposed by the President and the Secretary of Defense. The occupation is not a failure, but it will not be known if it was successful for several years. It is still an open question. What is known that had the President listened critics leading up to the war, some of these mistakes might have been avoided.

The President so far gets a C+ on this report card for his handling of the war.

Chris,

You raise some interesting points.

First, were there not a claim, an altogether reasonable one given Saddam's pre-invasion statements and behavior, about WMDs, the invasion would have been impossible. Americans will not support a war for 'human rights' without some colorable threat to Americans. Americans are also correctly suspicious about a war for diplomatic ends. We are an egalitarian people and diplomats, by definition, are removed from the fray. Due to their separation, most Americans neither trust nor respect them. The gamble, a correct one so far, that Bush made was that the elimination of Saddam would assist in ending the dispute between the State of Israel and the so-called Palestinians, correcting the British mistakes of 1948 and creating a state for the Arabs of the region to govern themselves instead of being ruled by a dynasty of failed princelings from Hejaz.

Secondly, the problems with the 'occupation' are entirely the result of Bush's unwillingness to confront the Turks and the Saudis. The Turks have forfeited any right to a veto over an independent Kurdistan through their Islamist lack of cooperation with the invasion. The Saudis are and always will be the epicenter of world terror and should be treated as such. I would not hold my breath waiting for an American politician who prefers ending terror to receiving Saudi baksheesh. Had Bush split the place into its 3 Ottoman provinces, the Shia region and Kurdistan would be self-governing and there would be a pipeline for oil from Kirkuk through Haifa. The Sunni region around Baghdad would still be a problem but it would merely be a rump state without resources, so if they ate each other it really wouldn't matter, and if they caused trouble in the region any of their neighbors could stomp them into a richly deserved mudhole.

I watched Crossfire on CNN yesterday. Sharpton vs. Novak. The issue was democracy in Iraq and the guest on the left was one P.J. Crowley of the Center for American Progress (!!!). He was full of tales of the disaster in Iraq. Novak, who I normally don't like, then hit him with polls showing the morale of the American military in Iraq was sky-high and that they were completely committed to their mission and upbeat about the Iraqis and their future. The patronizing, dismissive response was pure leftist disdain and pseudo-co0mpliments, and it made me want to upchuck.

Moral: The left cares nothing for truth. Yeah, I know, we already knew that. Been learning it for a hundred years. But now I REALLY know it. Whatever happens, guys, Iraq is a debacle.

Regarding the spliting of Iraq into three States, with appropriate distribution of oil revenues is still a possibility, even at this late date. I suggest that the Shia and Kurds will accept just that to end the civil war.

What would be the benefit to Shia or Kurds in maintaining a domination over the Sunni? They would constantly be under pressure from Syrian or Saudi Sunnis. (equitable oil revenue distribution is the key)

Chris
I think Bush could have sold the entire invasion and removal of Saddam as enforcement of the original ceasefire from 91. (Bart makes a good point, but the American people were not going to f*rt around with Arabs that close to 9/11). Chris your assessment was correct and Bush's credibility has been damaged.