An excellent analysis on why we are conflicted about winning in Iraq

[Hamlette]

A reader wrote:

"There may well have been people on the 'anti-Bush left' who wanted the war to fail 'solely to attack the president,' as you suggest. However, let me offer another more nuanced view, giving myself as an example. I've never been a Bush supporter, and could easily be counted as 'anti-Bush.' But I'm not anti-Bush just for the thrill of it. I have what I believe to be good reasons, among them many that you yourself have noted over the course of the last couple of years. What has scared and outraged me perhaps more than anything else about Bush is the extent to which he has followed a 'narrative' that is simply not supported by any empirical evidence and, more importantly, that he has apparently not been particularly interested in empirical evidence or expertise, period. It's as if the discussion about the Iraq war, and how to wage it, has been a private conversation between Bush and his Maker (with Rumsfeld and Cheney chiming in). I really don’t care what Bush's religious beliefs are, as long as he doesn't run the country and wage wars according to those beliefs alone, unencumbered by empirical facts or the opinions of experts. But that appears to be precisely what he's done.

Now, tens of thousands of deaths and billions of dollars later, Iraq is on the verge of civil war. And so, I've found myself actually ambivalent about how this war turns out. On the one hand, of course I want the United States to succeed. The potential consequences of losing the war in Iraq are horrendous. But on the other hand, I worry that if we finally do succeed in Iraq, Bush and his 'base' will conclude that, yes, if they just 'listen to God,' (and no one else), things will turn out just fine. And that conclusion, I fear, could be worse for this country than losing this war. I feel like I’m weighing two great potential catastrophes – one, a failed state where Iraq used to be; and the other, a United States 'cut loose' from its traditional basis of rational assessment and empirical evidence, 'guided' by a president who thinks the rest of us should just 'trust him,' since God is whispering directly into his ear. I honestly don't know which is the greater catastrophe. Hence the odd ambivalence about how the war ends."

And Sullivan's response:

This, I think, is the consequence of the Rovian conflation of politics and religion. It corrodes a democratic polity like acid. It turns patriots into people ambivalent about their country's success. The great challenge for liberals but especially conservatives today is how we can best rescue our secular politics - and sincere faith - from the theocratic poison that has been opportunistically injected into both.

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/

[MissWaverly]

1. I couldn't agree more, well said

[acmavm]

2. I understand what the article says, that there is a feeling that if things

finally do settle down in Iraq, bush** will get the credit. But I don't understand how that idea can be valid because no matter whether or not the Iraqis form a government that both Sunnis and Shi'ites can accept, that won't erase the hatred that they have for us now and will have for generations to come. That won't mean that tens of thousands haven't died for no reason except the hubris and greed of a bunch of evil bastards. Our service men and women will still be dead. That Afganistan won't be going on for decades. And if they attack Iran, that it just won't be a rerun of Iraq. I think that no matter what happens from now 'til Hell freezes over, it's the final total of loss of human life, money, goodwill toward our country, and the lies and criminal behavior of this administration that will determine whether or not bush** & Co. have anything to gain from this totally unnecessary and immoral war.

[Hamlette]

3. Bush and his ilk will never admit things are "bad" over there

if things stabilize enough for our troops to leave, they will declare "victory" even if it was not worth the cost or things are not "better" there. It is the perception I am afraid of. If they convince themselves the invastion of Iraq was successful, they will do other stupid things because God tells them to. Just like the 9/11 hijackers believe Allah told them to. It is the religion which motivates them that frightens me. The rest of the stuff we can fix. But if the right comes to believe that doing stupid things in the name of god work, we have become our worse nightmare: just like them.

[Kailassa]

4. Would you want your child to get away with a crime?

Knowing that getting away scot free with a mugging would make them likely to continue a life of crime?

Or would you do as I would, deliberately turn in your own child rather than see him or her become a criminal for life?

Much of the world hopes America fails badly in Iraq, because success there would lead to unmitigated hubris and no other country would feel safe any longer. It is far better for America, in the long run, to fail in Iraq and thus have a chance of re-establishing friendships with other countries than to be the big bully who everyone else hates.

And far safer for the Americans of the future.