Why Using "Win" or "Lose" with Iraq Helps Bubble-Boy

Josh Marshall of www.talkingpointsmemo.com has an excellent post this morning about why using the words "win" or lose" with reference to Iraq plays into Bush's hands. His point is that using such terms obscures the fact that American policy about what would happen in a post-war Iraq was bound to fail because our objectives aren't the same as the Iraqi objectives. He argues that Bush wanted to create an Iraq that would be unified, allied with America, secular, and democratic. The Iraqis seem to want a state that is not necessarily allied with America, not necessarily secular, and one where the Sunni minority is under the control of the Shia majority. His point is that using a "won/lost" dichotomy is artificial and doesn't really describe the problems facing America in Iraq. Click on the link in this entry's title to read Marshall's analysis.

Bush's & America's Lost Opportunity in Foreign Policy

Reuters has a story out today, (3.18.2007), about how the Iraq War has undercut the Bush administration and its chances of getting any sort of domestic agenda passed. It has also ended the talk of how the "Boy Genius", aka Karl Rove, aka "Turd Blossom", was going to reshape American politics by forging one party domination of the United States. One commentator points out that America's standing overseas has never been so low and he wonders if even a new administration can turn our image abroad around. (Click on the link in this entry's title to read the whole story).

Which brings us to the topic of this entry. Right after the events of 9-11 Bush and America enjoyed immense popularity abroad. There was broad support for our invasion of Afghanistan. Most of the world recognized that you couldn't allow a country to harbor terrorists who murdered over 3,000 of your citizens to go unpunished. The apparently quick victory in Afghanistan only fortified that sentiment.

If the Bush Administration had stopped there, consolidated its victory in Afghanistan, and helped bring about a secular democracy in Afghanistan, things would have been so much different from the aspect of America's image in the world. The United States would have been seen as doing the right thing.

It wouldn't have been easy. There would have been resistance from elements in Pakistan who might have supported Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. We would probably still have troops in Afghanistan and we would be spending a lot of money in aid to Afghanistan, but such actions would be seen by the rest of the world as necessary. Other countries would have seen that supporting terrorism leads to having governments successfully overthrown. American foreign policy objectives would have been much clearer and more defensible.

Now, all this isn't to say that Democrats at home wouldn't have still had their differences with Bush. Indeed you can make an argument that the best thing that Bush did for the Democratic Party was start his war with Iraq. It has clearly led to a decline in public support for the Republican Party, and has led, along with the Federal response to Hurricane Katrina, a questioning of the basic competence of conservatives. Of course, its hard for Democrats to take any joy in this since it has come at the cost of over 3,000 American military deaths, the deaths of literally thousands of Iraqis, and the total disintegration of America's standing in the world.