23 Comments

The war extends far beyond the confines of Iraq. Iraq is but a single campaign in a much greater war.

But that simple understanding doesn’t seem to inform our present foreign policy.

Iran is the foremost sponsor of muslim mayhem on the planet. Has been for decades. They’re backing the Taliban. They’re gaining influence in the Northwest Frontier Province. They’re taking over all Palestinian terror groups. They’ve established Hezbollah as a militarized wing of their own intelligence service, and they’ve ensconced them right along Israel’s border. In Iraq, they’ve been backing both Shiite and Sunni militants, playing both sides against the middle. As well as Al Qaeda, who they are supporting in Iraq and harbouring in Iran.

Syria is their chief Lieutenant, for Syria sees that Iran is in the saddle, whereas America appears a busted flush.

Iranians have been blowing up Americans, sniping at Americans, maiming Americans, disfiguring Americans and killing Americans. There are Americans in military hospitals right now, who are slowly navigating hospital corridors, trying to accustom themselves to prosthetic devices they’ll be wearing the rest of their lives, and all because of the Iranians. And what has George Bush done about it? Spit!

Additionally, {if addition were needed…} they’re constructing their own Manhattan Project.

And what’s Bush done about that, other than send Condi on one worthless diplomatic trip after another.

The legacy of William Clinton was writ large on the morning of September 11th.

But whereas Clinton lost us the twin towers, Bush might lose us the entirety of the Big Apple.

He’s clearly going to allow them to go nuclear. I’ve heard you say otherwise. But you’re wrong Professor. His present diplomacy is the pathetic attempt to put a happy face on that sad fact, {if he were not intending to allow them to go nuclear, why then install surface to air batteries in Southeastern Europe, which antagonized Russia, and had no other purpose but to throw up some flimsy shield between Iranian missiles and European cities}.

I voted for him, twice. Blogged for him, campaigned for him, cheered Zell Miller’s speech praising him, mocked John Kerry’s “global test” in support of him, and now…?????????????

Now I’ve been been forced to watch Karen Hughes embarrass herself at State. I’ve been forced to watch Condi demonstrate that she was NEVER all that, that she’s hopelessly out of her depth. I’ve been forced to watch Bush back off his “reform” of the UN; capitulate to the foreign policy establishment and throw Bolton under the bus. But then again, only a twit would’ve bothered trying to “reform” the UN, far better to have simply marginalized it. But Bush apparently prefers to channel the entirety of America’s foreign policy through that damn thing. YET THIS WAS THE GUY that lampooned Kerry for his “global test.” I’ve been forced to watch him toss Porter Goss overboard, with ALL that meant. Six years after 9/11, how many Arabic speakers do we have at FBI, CIA? It’s too painful to ponder, and those we do have, are muslims of dubious loyalties. But that’s right, I forgot, we’re not allowed to go there.

This is a guy who signed into law, WITH GREAT FANFARE, a bill that mandated almost 900 miles of fencing. Then does everything he can to slow down the actual construction process, while he tries to cut a deal with Kennedy that will reduce the mileage of the fence by two-thirds.

That’s not your usual case of political dishonesty.

It’s a rare breed who came up with that one.

This is a guy who in 2000, and 2004, when asked point blank in the debates: “What kind of justices are you looking to appoint,” answered: “I want them to be like Scalia and Thomas.”

So in TWO Presidential campaigns, George W. Bush STRESSED the importance of appointing Originalists to the high court.

And then what does he do in office.

First he tested the political waters about a potential Alberto Gonzales nomination. When he saw that didn’t fly, he retreated and went with John Roberts. But that was NEVER his first choice; that’s NOT the caliber of Originalist that he personally wanted on the court, despite his many utterances otherwise.

Then after winning one of the most hard-fought Presidential elections in American history, which saw him constantly stress the importance of appointing Conservatives to the Court, what does he do? He asked then Democrat MINORITY leader Reid who he would appoint, and Reid urged the President to go with Meirs, which he did.

The President NEVER campaigned saying “I’ll ask the Democrats who would be OK with them.” Nor did he say “I’ll allow the Democrats to dictate who I’ll nominate.” No. That’s not what he said when he was delivering two, three stump speeches a day.

And you wonder why I’m livid with this guy.

I’d have to be some kind of STEPFORD REPUBLICAN not to be livid.

I’m not about to drink the damn Kool-Aid, not for him, not for anybody.

This is another Bush who has done a great deal to resurrect from its grave, Rockefeller Republicanism.

Reagan and Gingrich delivered victories and majorities to the Grand Old Party.

The men of the Bush family seem determined to place modern Whigs in charge of my party. Creatures like Baker, Card, Meirs, Chertoff, Gonzales, et al.

The guy point-blank refuses to control the borders.

The guy branded senior citizens in lawn chairs, armed with nothing more than walky-talkies and binoculars, “vigilantes.”

“Vigilantes!”

The guy’s communication team is the worst in American history. When queried about it, he takes some kind of perverse pride in not reading the polls, as if he were up there on some political Olympus, where he doesn’t need to bother with the drudgery of ordinary politicking. Let that be the lot of lesser political mortals. He’s such a verbal cripple, even if he wanted to tell us what’s “on his heart,” he couldn’t do so.

And this guy is a graduate of Andover, Yale, Harvard Business School. But I’m supposed to tolerate this communicative and political ineptitude from him, from his staff.

This was a guy who beat Gore by telling us he was “from the business world, and that if somebody’s not getting the job done, I’ll find someone who will.” And he always said that with a certain Pattonesque swagger, and he always got a round of applause afterwards. But look at his staff, look at their incompetence, their ineptitude.

I’d rather be governed by Hermione Granger than George Walker Bush, and so would most Americans right about now.

This guy is so bad he’s actually making Jimmy Carter’s reputation rise in retrospect. Now that takes some doing.

And I could go on, and on, and on.

He took a red hot war started on 9/11, and morphed it into a long drawn out cold one.

What would be the advice of the three great Generals you chronicled in “The Soul of Battle” to this lackluster President?

Uh?

Do you think that anyone of them would tolerate for half a moment the idea of a war that would take “decades,” a war that will “take a long time.”

Uh?

My ideas for victory are found in your own book Professor.

Go after the enemy, in strength.

If you have to, upend their whole damn society. They started the damn thing, not us.

But Bush’s war effort, which rapidly placed our country on the strategic defensive, plays to the advantage of our enemies, and highlights all of our disadvantages. Not simply as Americans, but as a democracy. Such disadvantages you well related in “Carnage and Culture.”

Democracies aren’t fond of long wars, especially ones waged ineptly.

Even if General Petraeus manages to diminish the violence somewhat in Iraq, how is that decisive for us? If we are driven out, it will prove a decisive defeat. But if we prevail, it won’t prove decisive. Bush has managed to put us in a situation where defeat will prove disastrous, but victory not so.

Where is OVERALL strategic victory to be found in this war?

Here’s another question: What is George Bush’s OVERALL STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE in this war?

If Petraeus manages to somehow make Iraq manageable, that’s simply staving off crushing defeat and humiliation, which I’m all for by the way. But let’s not delude ourselves that Iraq is decisive.

Al Qaeda is but the terror group du jour. They’ve done more damage to us than any other, to be sure, and we need to kill every single damned one of them.

But at the end of the day, Syria still supports and sustains terror.

At the end of the day, the “Saudis” still fund to the tune of billions, “schools” of satanic hatred, not just in the Mideast, but here, in our own prisons, in our country.

And as for Iran, Iran continues on, towards the bomb, towards regional dominance, towards the complete eviction of the United States from the region, {once they get the bomb, who will dare place important naval assets within range of their atomic warheads}.

Condi is over her head.

Cheney is marginalized.

Bush has long lost whatever appetite he ever had to close with and annihilate the enemies of our country. He’s simply hanging on, desperately pleading for time, with some dispirited look on his face.

Does this guy build confidence? Please.

My party is going to be carrying his “legacy” around our necks like a millstone, FOR DECADES to come.

This guy cost us Rick Santorum.

This guy cost us Curt Weldon.

This guy came in with a budget of 1.6 trillion per annum. He’ll leave office with a budget of 3.2 trillion. He’ll have DOUBLED federal spending in a single Presidency.

Now I’m not even a fiscal hawk, but I know that such expenditure is insane, absolutely insane.

AND WHAT DID WE GET FOR IT?

Did we launch a manned mission to Mars? No.

Did we have the largest peacetime military buildup in American history, as we had with Reagan? No.

Did we construct some vast energy infrastructure, which we easily could have, that would FOREVER insulate us from the price swings of the Mideast? Alas, NO.

I suppose on the positive side, we do have a “bridge to nowhere.”

I suppose we should be content with that.

Perhaps even grateful.

This guy named a blockhead like Andy Card as Chief of Staff.

This guy named a KNOWN, NAKEDLY INSUBORDINATE, bureaucratic conniver, Colin Powell, to be his Secretary of State, and allowed him to place creatures like Wilkerson, Haas and Armitage in key positions at State. Didn’t take a rocket scientist to see how that would turn out.

This guy kept an inept Tenet at CIA, instead of purging CIA, {would have been much better to simply trash CIA, and erect a brand new, war fighting, war winning intelligence agency in its place, but that would have required taking on the establishment, and when has a Bush demonstrated much eagerness to do that….}.

What kind of moron would let Scott McClellan be the face and the voice of the White House? I think the best description of him was some blogger, who said that McClellan “looked like a cornered rat, even when asked something so mundane as what was on the President’s Thanksgiving menu.”

You can’t make this stuff up.

I’ve had it with him.

It’s as Peggy Noonan recently wrote, there’s something “weird” about him.

And as for his nonsensical whitewashing of 1,000 plus years of jihadism, …………….. I mean please.

This guy was actually holding the hand of the head of the house of al saud, a family steeped in the blood of Americans and Jews. A family funding hatred wherever the four winds blow.

I want to win the war.

I want the enemy crushed.

I want them made an object lesson.

I want the regime in Tehran crushed, destroyed, obliterated.

I want it done now.

I want that Manhattan Project comprehensively destroyed, left in ruins.

I want the nuclear arsenal of Pakistan delivered over to our custody. They can’t be trusted with nuclear weapons.

I want a SERIOUS war effort, coupled with SERIOUS statecraft.

And I’m not getting it from this poorly read blockhead.

You’re damn right I’m livid.

You’ve met Cheney too frequently. You’re pulling your punches. It’s interfering with your assessment of their job performance.

We’re fighting a war that plays to the advantages of our enemies.

That needs to change, fast.

We’re not going to really pacify Iraq, without removing the sick regime in Iran.

We’re not going to isolate Syria, and force them to come to a deal, without removing the Iranian regime that stands behind them.

We’re not really going to see a Democrat surge throughout the region, so long as we do nothing but exude weakness.

AND it’s not just the media, the Democrats exuding that weakness, nor is it just weak-kneed Republicans like Lugar and Hagel.

IT’S THIS ADMINISTRATION.

Present diplomacy is ripping the rug out from under Petraeus. Instead of hitting the Iranians, Bush is begging them to accept the damnable “grand bargain.”

IT’S BUSH, it’s Cheney, it’s Condi, it’s Nick Burns, it’s the whole damn lot of ‘em. They’re ALL exuding weakness.

And a guy with a clue, with a backbone, with some savvy, like Santorum, …………. he’s gone.

And as for Professor Ledeen, they don’t listen to him. Because what he has to say is what they’re desperate not to hear, not to know, not to make provision for.

George W. Bush is not going to give us victory.

He doesn’t even know what victory is, couldn’t define it.

The professionalism, the pride of the troops in the field cannot substitute for the incoherence of this war effort.

You can’t remove terror sponsors in Afghanistan, but put them in power in the West Bank and Gaza.

You can’t say we’re going to get rid of Saddam for his pursuit of WMD, while simultaneously allowing the Iranians to get their creepy little fingers all around WMD.

You can’t blast Saddam for pursuing atomics, while NOT demanding A.Q. Khan to be delivered over.

You can’t allow Pakistan to carve out some separate peace treaty with evildoers in the NWFP.

And you can’t be serious about energy chirping about fricken windmills, and biofuels.

What all of OPEC is to crude, America ALONE is to coal. America is literally standing on a vast mountain range of coal, between the Pacific and the Atlantic. God has made us energy self-sufficient if we wish. And instead of using inherent wartime authority, Bush allowed dopey Karen Hughes to rewrite his energy bill.

Just thinking about the many blown opportunities of this administration, makes me feel the need for a frozen margarita.

I don’t know where you get the energy to defend this administration.

Bush has delivered over his foreign policy to the foreign policy establishment. If that’s not capitulation, what is?

Dr. Hanson,

Laughed at?

“Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence.” - Einstein

Laugh back.

JTL

Victor is excellent at pointing out the short memory of most Americans.

Alberto Gonzales (who I am no big fan of)is a great example.

He languished for years waiting for a Senate hearing on his court appointment (which never came). And he was lambasted by the Senate when nominated for AG - when all manner of lies were told.

The most egregious was that in a memo he called parts of the Geneva Convention “quaint”.

What the media NEVER reported while they repeated this phrase over and over agin to show what a fascist he was, was that he specifically referred to the provisions of the Convention that require educational opportunities, entertainment, and athletic uniforms be provided to POW’s.

If the media had reported that, every American would have agreed that Al Quaeda head-hackers should not get microscopes, HBO, and soccer tournaments while in prison.

Senate hearings are simply a reflection of the current media environment - which is totally unserious about winning ANY war America is fighting.

We should be amazed that more Senate wintnesses don’t deride and scorn these paper lions to their face.

Professor Hanson,
I appreciate your almost-weekly take on the world. Your final sentences caught it all - more people than not think in the short-term. Your long view of history provides an adult perspective that is sorely lacking in much of our political class, hence the disdain for both the Prez and the Congress.

I do believe you are correct - history will judge this presidency based upon the small tests you have listed.

Thank you for the effort in putting these missives together.

“Why the general anger at government?”

While President Bush is responsible for his share, the Frankenstein monster that is the federal government has been seventy years in the making. What’s comical is the braying Democrats complaining now that the monster they enthusiastically helped create from the rotting carcass of socialism has finally turned on them!

For many of us who count ourselves “conservative” , or more accurately libertarian, being in favor of small-government, local control, balanced budget, controlled borders, a non-interventionist foreign policy, and suspicious of concentrations of political power, just what is there to be doing cartwheels over?
• Our even-handed agricultural policy that rewards overproduction with hundreds of thousands of dollars in subsidy, while by Dr. Hanson’s own testimony vine and fruit farmers go bankrupt?
• For those of us who don’t want our government allied with religious groups of ANY flavor, should we rest assured that the Constitution is still supreme and not the evangelical or fundamentalist vote?
• Should we applaud Mr. Bush’s leadership of a bipartisan coalition racking up three trillion dollars on the national debt in six years, making it a nice round nine trillion to hand off to our heirs?

As for Iraq, many of us agree with Chuck Hagel and Ron Paul, though I part company with them on precipitous withdrawal and agree we must see the miserable affair through. I pray that I am wrong and more learned men like Dr. Hanson are correct; that this effort will pay dividends in the future. Still, I cannot help but feel that we cannot afford to be the world’s policeman, and the entire wretched Middle East isn’t worth the bones of one Iowa National Guardsman.

And why doesn’t the press comment about Mrs. Clinton’s obvious plastic surgery?

Not nice to ask a lady?

She’s no lady; she’s Hillary Rodham Clinton.

In “The Ultimate Bracketology” in the category of “Bad Plastic Surgery,” Mrs. Clinton is in the Final Four.

The winner?

Michael Jackson.

I am part of the Reagan Conservative core and I also lost admiration for Bush after the amnesty campaign. However, Bush’s quality of sticking to his guns will in the end bring us victory in Iraq and the broader War. He has the most important issue right at least.

On The Furor over Bush: I’ve felt this way for the past two years. Principled leaders are usually judged well by history, unless they are wholly incompetent. Bush is not.

The dissatisfaction with Bush is caused, I believe, by a failure to understand how difficult this actually is (we don’t teach history anymore), a vampire media that feeds on the blood of those it holds up to be pilloried, and a Congress that hopes to get in on the bloodfest.

But the dissatisfaction with Congress is even greater than the dissatisfaction with the president. They won’t get a free pass, especially as the 2008 elections grow nearer. It’s my belief that as the elections approach people start to think seriously about things instead of just buying into the promise of the remedies offered by this or that candidate or movement. A steady trickle from a stream can fill a pond over time; a steady trickle of good news from Iraq, if it can get past the MSM, will turn the election for the Republicans … if they produce someone whom the voters feel reflects their priorities and is capable of achieving them.

I think there are many of us, though fewer every day, who agree with your assessment of Iraq/Bush, but find it very difficult to say so out loud in the current climate. The MSM have successfully managed to protray Iraq as one giant IED after another; there will be many surprised and disappointed people, not just Democrats, if Petraus pulls this off, as I think he will.
Thanks.

I’m not laughing…I think you are exactly right.

When Gen. Petraeus reports in September, should he give the expected “we’re doing better but there are problems” line or should he take a more positive and forceful “we are making significant progress and we can win if the military is properly supported and left to do their job for two more years” approach. I think the latter would better unite the country and provide hope while supporting our position with the Iraqis that we won’t pull out just when things are turning around. I think Petraeus is in the driver’s seat if he wants to really provide leadership.

What do you think Gen. Petraeus should report or how he should handle it?

I could probably be considered a diehard conservative and I would agree with the anger toward Pres. Bush. There are many, many reasons including;
-Osama is still alive and well despite the fact that we at least know his general location.
-Support for the travesty called an immigration bill.
-Continued dithering on Iran
-Numerous attempts to placate the politically correct despite evidence that nothing short of political suicide will do.
The list could go on for many pages. As far as I’m concerned, he is no better than his father. His primary legacy will be a decent supreme court justice and a bungled war in Iraq.

Nobody’s laughing at you here.

An excellent summation of the situation– I think it makes clear the obvious duplicity of the Democratic party– as you point out, we heard for literally years about the lack of troops in Iraq, and now that George W. Bush has increased troop levels, we witness a complete reverse course.

Where is the accountability? Where is the close, ridiculous scrutiny of the Democratic party? If Gonzales should face such brutal questioning, shouldn’t the Democratic critics?

I am beginning to wonder if calls for more troops were merely part of a long-term political strategy that ended in the horrendously two-faced invective Republicans and, more directly, George W. Bush face today.

Thank you for your writings.

President Bush inherited a mess from incapable past presidents started with Jimmy The Car-TerTer who created OBL phenomena, and allowed the establishment of Khomeinists backward and inhumane regime and overall Islamist with his Green Belt nonsense causing millions of life around the world so far. As a result of that incapability terrorist Islamist and Khomeinists Taliban fascists after few dry and wet run during Clintonian era were able to hit the heart of civilization along with the symbols of capitalism. Despite all the efforts by this administration to fight back and defeat Islaimist terrorism, the alliance of LeftOver Marxists, International Socialists, Liberal Media in Europe and their influence in US media, and US politician blindly following the Europe liberal agenda with the overall goal of defeating capitalism is fruiting now. The forces of evil who are being supported by certain elements of energy sector who have bought enough entities in US to pay for their propaganda by increasing the oil price in US who only fault is progressed enough to use the most of the oil, are now ganging together to bring down this President and destroy the prestige of the US. Ganging Gonzales issues, with Iraq, and manipulating the market have enabled the forces of evil and old Europe to successfully put enough pressure on the administration to either bend, abandon its stated goals, or be impeached.

In the meanwhile the International oil companies with the support of European media, are busy doing away with UN mandates and agreements in regards to economic sanction on terrorists. Here is the example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/07/27/cnshell127.xml

I hope you are right about Bush. I would hate to see Hilary or Obama when the White House. There arent many real conservatives running in the Republican party but they are all better then Hilary, Obama, or Edwards. Scary.

Republicans actually _laughed at_ you for making these comments? I’d like to hear more about that.

I entirely agree with you regarding Petraeus! I’ve been sensing an improvement, albeit a slowly building one, ever since he started “the Surge”.

If the enemy was “traditional” in the sense that it was strongly organized and had a unified command, then we might have even seen by now a true “turning of the tide” along with the accompanying acceleration of the enemy towards defeat — like a Goliath falling down.

But because the enemy is apparently made up of hundreds of self-directing cells that share only a unified goal, it is possible to have large victories in one area and that victory not necessarily affect the remaining cells (psychologically). In other words, the enemy is structured like a mold — killing a large part of it doesn’t mean you’ve killed the entire beast. One has to literally go around to every cell and kill or capture every member.

While an enemy structured in this “low-level” way will never defeat (in a traditional sense) our army, this type of organization — this beehive mentality — makes them impossible to destroy by just killing their head — since they have no head to lop off.

And the problem with that is that the US public wants a sensational defeat, not a series of small or medium sized victories that we can point to to show that “we are winning”.

Petraeus is a phenomenal man — it simply appears that our public doesn’t appreciate him. In large part this is because, unlike Sherman, the newspapers don’t herald his successes.

Yes, we all agree that with the right leadership, our military is far superior to any Islamic configuration. So what do you see, Dr. Hanson, in the Iraqi people and their leaders and in Muslims in general that gives you hope?

And when Bush sends the state department to Iran instead of taking decisive, long-over due retaliatory action against them for their role in the Iraqi problems, their imprisonment of US citizens, their support of terrorism in Lebanon and Gaza, etc., what kind of leadership is that?

What kind of principled leadership allows the Saudis to spread their hateful ideology in America?

I like your point about conservative discontent with Bush. I believe THAT’S why Republicans lost congress in ‘06 — and for the very reasons you gave. (Note the number of blue dog Democrats elected.) I happen to like Bush, but I’m center-right and not conservative. Come to think of it, he is, too. I don’t know why everyone thought differently and now feels betrayed. What did they think “compassionate conservative” meant?

Dead on, especially about “choosing apparent advantage over principle.” Our society of cheap superficial gimmickry, pandering to popularity, and group-think has produced a citizenry and leadership that can only look as far as its own clownish probiscus of self-promotion. Is this the danger of democracy that D’Toqueville warned un about?

As scarce as the truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand.– Josh Billings

Instead of trying to destroy Bush and the image of the US, why not Europe and its liberal media here and there, is not working toward peace. I havea simple proposal. Here is:

Call it a dream, but if Europe let go of appeasement policies and stops supporting Khomeinist Radicals economically and instead supports Iranian people in achieving their goal of establishing democracy by overthrowing the backward regime of murderous Ayatollahs, miracles can happen.

Imagine a world where no crazy man threaten destruction of another country, Muslim, Jews, and Christians can live in complete peace and harmony, and no one is being killed for his believes and political ideology, women and minority have exact same right as everyone else. Regime change in Iran can definitely accomplish such task. There would not be a regime supporting Jihadis, Hamas, Hezbolah, and as a result all other Islamist radicals. Europe can sleep easily when there is no entity such as Khomeinists Talibans to support radical Islamist.

Why European don’t allow the peace to happen and why they are against human dignity by economically supporting Khomeinists is beyond any logic. As far as I know and having research for many years the cultural and traditional aspects of the people and the countries I am proposing for the Union, I have yet to see any animosity from an educated Iranian, Turkish, or Lebanese toward Israel.

As a matter of fact such union will benefit all countries, those that are directly involved and Western countries such as US and Europe, and human race as a whole. There would actually be no need to support crazy colonial ideas of separation of Kurdish, Turkish, Arabs,…from any of these countries anymore to create more bloodshed. And Israel for its survival doesn’t need to join certain European circles by supporting such crazy ideas. Instead, Israel can live and must live in peace with all of its neighbors and beyond and benefit from it.

Here is my Proposal (simply put):
1) Formation of Untied Stated of West Asia (USWA)
2) Main Condition to join: Establishing Democracy where states adopt the complete separation of Church and State policy I their constitutions, and accepting to coexist and the rights and territorial integrities of all countries involved.
3) Countries to join: Iran, Israel, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria (upon establishment of democracy) and upon establishment of Peace treaties: Palestine and Iraq can join too.
4) Water and Sea access: Access to Mediterranean Sea, Persian Gulf, Black Sea, Aegean Sea, Caspian Sea
5) Main Source of income: Agriculture, High Tech. Industry, Computing, Energy, Tourism
6) Human Resources: Well Educated human resources and labor force
7) Culture: Traditional ancient culture combined with Western Culture System of government: Democracy based Parliamentary Republic, or Parliamentary Monarchy
9) Total Population: 200M-250M

What is a better deal, Continuation of anarchy or establishment of the peace? Let us see if Europe support such idea or it is afraid the USWA is might be too friendly with US.

Success sells. I have a conservative friend who lost patience with the Iraq War and Bush by the summer of 2004. Similarly if the Seattle Mariners are not winning by July of each year he calls them bums and quits watching the games. He’s also ticked off because Bush supports providing a route to citizenship for the illegals who can meet the requirements.

He seems to be cut of the same cloth as your prominent Republican friends.

I don’t know why I have kept the faith that we could and should win in Iraq. Maybe because I’m a Vietnam vet and the memories of our failure there still trouble my soul. That and my belief, like you, that our military is top notch and cannot be defeated on the field of battle. Only through the collective loss of will of our citizenry can they fail to accomplish the mission.

It’s good to know that I’m in good company when I make my optimistic arguments to friends.