Some excerpts from those articles posted at MEMRI:

“Yes, the occupation is a blessed and promising liberation for Iraq, even if the U.N., Europe, Russia, India, and all the Arabs say otherwise.” …

“Iraq and the whole region are on the threshold of deep fundamental changes… My country reached [a level of] devastation that other [nations in the area] never experienced… As we all know, the Americans, who took upon themselves to affect change, are the trail blazers in eliminating a bloody regime the likes of which the world has never seen… [We should admit] honestly that if we want to affect true change in Iraq, one that will cut through the layers and reach the core, there is no escaping [help from the U.S.]” …

“We the Iraqis have already proven our helplessness. With all our ideological forces, our leaders, our masses and the weapons we possessed, we have proven our inability to move even a single hair in Saddam Hussein’s mustache… and since only the Americans are able to change Iraq, and since they are the only arm capable of reaching the thief in his den, the terrorist in his cave and the despot in his hiding stronghold… there is no escaping from American help…” …

“[What we want] is a safeguard that will create an open vista in which we can thoroughly reexamine our assumptions, just like Germany, South Korea and other nations… which the Americans liberated…”

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=iraq&ID=SP59003

Bush’s conduct of the war was initilally poor, but we faced the hardest kind of challenge: guerrilla warfare backed by religious fanaticism. We eventually learned how to beat it, something Napoleon and Hitler could not. It was an amazing feat of arms to anyone who knows their military history. Criticize all you want. That fact stands true. Neither Johnson nor Nixon were able to do the same in ‘Nam. Bush was able to win and those guys couldn’t. That’s enough legacy for me. The conduct of the Iraq war will be studied forever in military colleges.

I wonder when it will be safe for discussions about what the Bush Administration did for our military overseas in all the countries we still have a presence in. I recall that the fringe elements were becoming more and more bold, to the point where our soldiers were being attacked on their way to work. I especially recall incidents in South Korea and the South Korean government officals reluctance to address the problem. Too many country’s leaders have used us as targets for the citizens to attack in order to divert attention away from their own performance. When Donald Rumsfield spoke of the “realignment” of our troops on the world stage it was not too soon afterward when those countries we have been helping to protect from the savages at the gates stood up, took notice, and requested that our troops remain. Any observant person with an interest in the world and the part we play in it had to see for the past eight years before the Bush Administration was elected we were becoming a country of experts in our own self-flagellation bowing and apologizing for our very existence. It was hard to witness and leading to our mortal wounding.

Thanks for the thoughful reply. I couldn’t disagree more.

“Saddam was never a threat to us…”

…is at the root of your misconceptions. We were at war with Saddam the day Bush took office, indeed the day Clinton took office. This is why on September 11th informed people immediately asked whether Saddam had anything to do with the attacks. I’ve already recited the list of risk factors associated with leaving Saddam in power. But you are welcome to believe in your Moorish (Michael Moore-ish, that is) fantasies of an alternative kite-flying Iraq. It’s a free country.

“Which is a good thing for the women, because almost all of them were smart enough to realize how stupid George and Laura Bush were, and sensibly kept their burquas on.”

Words fail me. This attitude is so completely grotesque that one struggles to find historical analogies. It’s as though you were arguing that sensible Jews in Nazi Germany refused to take off their gold stars. And it is not as though you are adopting the (defensible) attitude that other cultures just have different values — you are calling it “sensible” to wear a burkha, which means that you agree with those values.

“That neglects the massive loss of US prestige and clout internationally. Chinese leaders now say they believe America’s significant decline as a world power actually started in 2004, well before capitalism’s economic catastrophe.”

You seem to be under the impression that we had massive prestige to lose, and that there was some kind of value to that prestige that would compensate for, say, the loss of an American city to a terrorist bomb. And you seem to be ready to believe the Communist reading of history over our own. There’s a word for that….

“Our enemies know that with our ground force committed…. Air power will only damage, not defeat, a foe.”

Not that I’m endorsing the Clintonian approach, but air power did seem to be decisive in Serbia…. But your point seems to be that we could be using ground troops to fight Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il, to which I would say, “Get in line!” Fighting has its own deterrent value in other theaters. And I flatly disagree that we are now unable to deal with a threat in, say, the Korean Peninsula. Perhaps you mean to imply that we could at least to hold ground troops in reserve as some kind of deterrent threat to discourage them from acting against American interests. But this theory would only make sense if you believe that Iran and North Korea started their nuclear programs, for example, AFTER the Iraq invasion… is that really what you believe? Do you really think Iran and North Korea were well-behaved prior to 2003? Fascinating.

“As for Grant, Cold Harbor was just a step closer to him getting Unconditional Surrender. Iraq and Afghanistan are just steps closer to the US getting out with some dignity, hopefully, and Islamists back in charge again….”

…which convinces me you know even less about the Civil War than about the current situation. As Grant himself said, “At Cold Harbor no advantage whatever was gained to compensate for the heavy loss we sustained.” It was a Union defeat. But my point was not about defeat or victory, it was about perspective on the magnitude of casualties. You might want to consider that we lost more men in a single training accident in WWII than we did in any year of the Iraq campaign. (Try googling “Slapton Sands”). Or that more troops were killed on duty during the Clinton years than during the Bush years. We honor our war dead, but it serves only the enemy to exaggerate those losses to the point it impairs our judgment.

BBB

Thank you for you highly enlightening historical perspective. It should be required reading for everyone at all levels.

“Bush had the courage to NOT go along with the flow, to NOT be like “everyone else.”

I agree with that statement. Unfortunately, he made many wrong decisions and created a mess.

“Vivo… put the bong away. People are not naturally inclined to respect for fellow men. Take another look at the history books.”

Maybe I should have written that they don’t need democracy NOW as their first PRIORITY. I guess I wasn’t clear.

By saying that History leads the way, I meant look at the History of the USA and other democratic nations and how they eventually developed into democratic nations, because they felt it in their heart. If Germany and Japan became democratic, although they were pressured, they immediately liked the idea and accepted it. The Iraqis cling too much to their religious beliefs and are not ready for democracy yet.