So, that’s why the ISG wants Iranian help to stablize Iraq?

“Remember, we “liberated” the Iraqis. We did not conquer them. The result is a bastardized democracy.”

Yes, I remember that. I said as much previously. It isn’t likely to last that long. Now with Islam as the highest law.

“Wahabism is the true enemy. We need an effective counter to this archaic religious philosophy, and to the Saudis who promote it.”

Islam is the true enemy. Wahabism is just the most visible and risible version of it. We do nothing to stop that promotion even within our own country.

The Marshall plan was in part put forth as a counter to Soviet aims in Western Europe. Stabilizing Iraq is possibly our best counter to Iranian intentions in the “Persian” Gulf, whether we pursue long term basing rights there or not. Rebuilding Japan post WWII made sense for similar reasons. However, unlike MacArthur in Japan, Bremer and associates were unable to write the Iraqi constitution. Remember, we “liberated” the Iraqis. We did not conquer them. The result is a bastardized democracy.

I agree with your implied concerns regarding Saudi Arabia, and if I were a so called Neocon that country, not Syria or Iran, would be next on my list for regime change. Yet one more reason to have a presence in the region. And while Shia terrorists are a legitimate problem, they are a political tool of the Iranians, and are seen as such, I believe, by a majority of Muslims (especially Sunni Arabs). Wahabism is the true enemy. We need an effective counter to this archaic religious philosophy, and to the Saudis who promote it.

You did not portray Mr. Buchanan as an anti-Semite and a racist. He has been more than capable of doing that with his own hot-headed rhetoric over the years. This recent unscholarly book of his concerning WW II is proof that Mr. Buchanan still does not “get it” about the current situation in the world. The idea of NOT fighting the Third Reich to destruction, or half-hearted engaging it and then giving up, so as to let it establish an iron grip on Europe and part of Asia gives me the chills to consider the state of the world in 2008 with such a situation.

The Cold War with the USSR was bad enough, and still very “hot” in places where traditional Western republican & democratic ideals clashed with the Communist ideals of submission to the collective will & demands of the State. The Nazis had all of that opposing attitude possessed by the Communists, plus a tendency to meet rejection or resistance with vigorous attempts at exterminating the rejecting/resisting populace. Even if the United Kingdom and its Empire, and our own great nation with far-flung territories, had managed to overcome the Imperial Dictatorship of Japan and kept the Pacific free, we should still be locked into a continual struggle with a global Power whose ruling elite would have been indoctrinated from birth to regard themselves as the natural rulers of an all-encompassing National Socialist empire with the self-imposed destiny of subjugating all humanity within its reach. Compared to the Thousand Year Reich, Osama Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, and all their ilk are a bunch of mirror-gazing, tinhorn wanna-bes.

Why Mr. Buchanan should ever wish such a situation were upon us is beyond me, but apparently he would find it more satisfying than watching us try to stifle an outbreak of religious-based terorism & shadow warfare. Admittedly, the Global War on (Islamic) Terrorism has not been the stuff of Hollywood spectacle, and it is admittedly frustrating to try to contain and destroy the destructive element of an international culture without reducing those international regions to a lower level of civilization than they already possess. But, such is the evil of our times that we are called upon to face. If our great Nation has become slow to respond to hostile threats that do not conveniently label themselves with a symbol or uniform, we need to find ways to effectively stimulate it to greater efforts. Looking to past foes through the narrow focus of nostalgia will not solve the problem.

Your own books and essays have sometimes taken the United States in particular and the Western World in general to task over the collective lack of will to maintain the cultural and political values & traditions that have made the United States the preeminent nation in the world. At the same time, you recall those values & traditions to us, and remind us that they are still present, waiting to be upheld and used to the benefit of us, our descendents, and eventually to all the world.So, until Mr. Buchanan changes his mind, you shall always have the upper hand in the debate, with no need to sling ad hominem attacks in defense of an indefensible position, as he has done.

Like some of his colleagues at State, Barack Obama is one of your “international affairs” graduates (Columbia University 1983).

Creating an Islamic state in Afghanistan doesn’t, though. Attaturk had the only solution to a quasi-free country with Islam the dominant religion.

“I seriously doubt saving the Iraqi people from a murderous tyrant was ever a real factor in his decision making. We’ll be debating this one for along time to come.”

I believe this to be true. The “Iraqi Freedom” line was PR.

“Staying in Iraq for five plus years (to date) may turn out to be the correct decision and the saving grace for George Bush’s legacy.”

Maybe. The problem with attempting to replicate the Marshall Plan in the Middle East is that the people have to want freedom in a Western sense (most do not) and understand the implications. Being motivated to better their country is a help. This “hand up” we gave Germany and Japan at the end of WWII was only offered after they had been completely defeated. This did not happen in Iraq. Plus, this “war on terror” has become only about Iraq. Iraq is only a minor front in this war Islam has picked with us. Our territorial security and reducing Saudi influence is of no interest to this Administration. In fact, they’ve been active in promoting that influence and reducing our perimeter security.

To continue the World War II analogy, we’re appeasing Germany (Iran), rebuilding Italy (Iraq), and sucking-up to Japan (Saudi Arabia).

You cannot fight a war with Muslim terrorists when you fund organizations like al Fatah, encourage Saudi money to pour into the United States, leave our perimeter undefended, and cede every ideological point in conflict. I don’t care about Iraq or the people in Iraq. They’ve repeatedly made their own bed. I care about my own country. Iraq is ONLY worthwhile if it enhances our security. Otherwise, defeat them and issue them a stern warning to never do it again. Considering the constitution we let them create, I don’t think it will help us in the long run, despite all the money we’ve spent.

“…we do not exist as a nation to save the world from itself.”

In my opinion, absolutely true. However, we did not invade Afghanistan to save it from itself, but to eliminate a regime which harbored terrorists who committed an act or war. 9/11 was a legitimate cause for military intervention in Afghanistan, period. Staying there to foster stability only makes sense, and is a cause at least nominally embraced by our European “allies”.

Toppling Saddam Hussein is obviously a more controversial subject. Like many Americans, I have spent the last five years trying to understand the Bush Administration’s decision making process which led to our intervention. The post hoc reports coming out now only cloud the issue, perhaps with one exception. The Senate Intelligence Committee report which came out recently clearly shows we were operating in the dark. The NIE from Oct 2002 concluded Saddam was a threat, possessed WMD and had some contacts with terrorist groups. A little over one year after 9/11, it would have been hard for any President to have ignored that assessment. Regardless of what justifications Bush has given us since then, I seriously doubt saving the Iraqi people from a murderous tyrant was ever a real factor in his decision making. We’ll be debating this one for along time to come.

Staying in Iraq for five plus years (to date) may turn out to be the correct decision and the saving grace for George Bush’s legacy. His stubbornness may some day be perceived as steadfastness (c.f. David Brooks’ article today in NYT) in the face of near universal condemnation. For me, the only reason to concede in this war is if we cannot find a strategy to effect a reasonable outcome that promotes our security interests. That point now seems moot.

I agree also with the entirety of your last paragraph.

“I believe it was this interventionism that gave freedom and democracy to millions including the 50,000,000 people in Iraq and Afghanistan recently.”

Not only is that not a proper cause of war, it also isn’t really true.
The Iraqi and Afghani constitutions make Islam the highest law. That’s no recipe for freedom.

I wish people currently – particularly the “international affairs” majors who populate our State Department – had a better understanding of what “democracy” actually is, what a national interest is, how that would best be served, and that we do not exist as a nation to save the world from itself.

‘a judgment perhaps clouded by the politics of western interventionism’

I believe it was this interventionism that gave freedom and democracy to millions including the 50,000,000 people in Iraq and Afghanistan recently.

Before, they all had little hope for a bright free future. But thanks to the interventionism of the USA, the nastiest, most cruel and inhumane leaders have been vanquished.

Let them wear each other out? Do you have any German friends? They don’t wear out easy.

Hitler would have known that both nations would go to war only if attacked by Germany directly. This would have left Hitler free to attack the Soviet Union. He stated explicitly in Mein Kampf; Lebensraum was to be found in the east.

What would have happened had Germany been left to fight Russia without fear of a two-front war? Operation Barbarossa was launched later than planned in the summer of 1941. If the Wehrmacht had had an additional six weeks of good weather, Moscow most certainly would have fallen. Stalin’s bungling during the early months of the campaign had him convinced that another failure would result in his arrest and removal from power. The new government might have sued for peace.

What would the Nazi empire have looked like with access to Caucasian oil and Ukrainian manpower? Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary had already become axis satellites. The Greater Reich would have become unstoppable.

The war was inevitable whatever the scenario. The Anglo-French mistake was not in declaring war, but rather in the appeasement policies that only served to encourage more German aggression. A prompt counter-response in September of 1939 would have denied the Germans the nine month respite of the so-called Phony War. In this scenario heavy bomber raids by the RAF would have enjoyed fighter escort from bases in France. Germany industry would have been pounded from the beginning. The airwar would have been fought over German cities, not British.

Hitler’s early successes cemented his position as German fuhrer. Early failures would likely have had the opposite affect. The Junker class would have removed him from power and likely sued for peace.

Better to stand by and not let the West arrogantly assume that intervention was better than the consequences… however at what point do the 6 million systematically killed by the Germans and two or three times that number murdered or dead in Stalin’s Russia become our interest? Do we merely accept one of these two murderers (“not excusing”, to use the preface) and turn our backs?