In the tradition of his English ancestors, GW Bush has muddled forward sticking to his ideals and changing his assessment and strategy. How he decided on the surge. As to how we got there, I understand that the first chapter of Fiasco is instructive.

A Partial Defense of John McCain

No doubt it is inflammatory, but our current stance on the potential new immigration law put me in mind of a commonality between us and some of our opponents in Iraq, not that every jot and tittle of the law is 'for the best.' One reads, 'it's their (the Iraqis) land and how would you feel..' etc.; never mind that they could elect a government which could tell us to leave and we would go. Never mind that a part of our idea is to leave a country with more opportunity, w/o tyrannical oppression of a large part of the populace, a difference from before. Illegal Mexican immigrants would go to San Salvador rather than the U.S if the jobs were better, 'will work for food' as the placard says. And, in this country, we generally want money because we think we can do something with it; that 'something' at times involves the illegals or they wouldn't be here. So we get something for it, the offsets to these benefits are discussed in an Economist blog. So there may be something more psychological than logical about the objections of the Iraqis and ourselves.

And John McCain? Well, he is one of the sponsors of the immigration bill. He also has had the right ideas at the right time about Iraq, our most important public policy issue. More troops earlier is number one. But how about 'McCain-Feingold'? Not that I am for this bill, but if you look at John McCain's history, it becomes less objectionable. When he was a carrier pilot off of VN, he did not have to fly above a certain longitude north, rank had its privilege. He was and is, by those who know this detail, greatly admired for disdaining this privilege and flying anyway. That is how he was shot down and made a prisoner of war. McCain-Feingold protects incumbents from feeling as much that they have to raise a lot of money to run their races, a rank has its privileges deal, something, for him, natural. It is not the end of the world; it can be changed when he is gone.

Lent, VN, and Iraq

In 1967, from a bookstore on the 'Drag' at the University of Texas, I got "Lotus in a Sea of Fire" by a Buddhist monk. It was anti VN war, one needs to put VN=Lotus to see the theme, influential to me. Recurrently, in recent years, I have wondered what happened to that monk. Due to a recent issue of Commonweal, I know partially. A Vietnamese Catholic theology professor in D.C. went back to VN with his mother. The Catholic school in their village was gone but a serene Buddhist pagoda was there and his mother prayed before the Buddha. In today's Gospel, Luke:27-38, Jesus says 'to the man who takes your cloak from you, do not refuse your tunic.' In Symbol, Dream & Psychosis there is an interesting discussion about how self criticism or guilt may be sexualized, how the ego may experience this pleasurably. I agree that we are presented with a new and useful ethic in the Gospel. As Father Peter says, this is the opening of the Lenten and this Gospel seen as pointing toward the death of Christ. According to Reimarus'it had not been his purpose to suffer and die, but to establish an earthly kingdom and deliver the Jews from political oppression-and in that God's help had failed him.' The example of VN, where we had the televised self immolation of Buddhist monks and innumerable, unpublicized examples of children sent to blow themselves up.

For shame! No WMD in Iraq.

The superiority de jour over the U.S. is Bush being mistaken over the presence of WMD in Iraq. I thought I'd gather my comments on that given in the Volokh Conspiracy and Asymmetrical Information:

I appreciate your criticising Mr. Bush without vitriol. You know there were arguments in the months prior to our going to the UN when it was clear that Mr. Bush wanted to invade Iraq. Saddam had a clear history of murdering innocent and mere opponents, in a sense was like the man eating tiger who had to be considered dangerous for living in that unnatural manner. If Saddam didn't have dangerous WMD, he had them on his Muslim holiday list along with suicide bombers of Israeli children; and the sanctions were tenuous. The Democrats and media, representing you presumably, said we had to get the acquiescence of the world community. Was he going to say that 'after 9/11 (and implications noted by Tony Blair above) I don't think I can do my duty as first soldier and guardian of the country with Saddam Hussein in office?' No, he had to make a case on UN precedents and Saddam's failure to comply. Like the prosecutors we have been lambasting in recent blog posts, he, for you (i.e. those demanding international acquiescence), put on the case with the evidence he had. The case came down not to a conviction or acquittal of Saddam, because there really wasn't sufficient evidence, in part because there was 'obstruction of justice (or investigation).' This then lacked a definitive finding from the UN, and Saddam appeared not to cooperate believing his French and Russian allies would necessitate an affirmative finding on the first charge; but Bush was never compelled by their finding to begin with, only ours of making an honorable international trial, and proceeded then with the public impression of Saddam's obstruction of justice to war.

From my interviews with patients from the First Gulf War, I believe that Saddam used them, chemical weapons, against our troops to a limited extent (or with limited penetrance). Lets assume he still had them. He had a decision to make. The issue before the U.N. was, 'Is war justified by his possession of WMD?' If he attacks our troops with them, then that justifies our aggression. This is only really useful for him if it determines the outcome of the war. Another alternative is to ship them to Syria, which a senior Iraqi Air Force officer has reported in a book. Remember pan-Arabism? Syria is controlled by the Baath party, same as was in Iraq. The information about a planned chemical attack on Amman is consistent with there being in Syria. Also WMD not being found can be a justification for his allies or right minded thinkers to attack the integrity of those who attacked Iraq. The third alternative, simply leaving them in Iraq, can be easily eliminated from his multiple choice answer because that is as bad as using them and without benefit. His stalling and giving incomplete reports leads credence to his having this multiple choice. You ever wonder why the police don't publish in the paper who they're going to bust for marijuana possession next Saturday?

Bush's speech

I heard it in my car, liked it a lot. Instapundit links to Don Souber 'on Kennedy' in which piece is an elegaic, if abstract, reflection of what we lost by abandoning VN. We didn't watch as Creighton Abrams, Gen. Westmoreland's successor, and our diminishing soldiers, with the Vietnamese, building on earlier sacrifices established a new country there which our congress, taking to heart our cynicism, abandoned. Our ability to learn and the posibility of rehabilitation contribute to my faith that we can bring a good peace and not accept a sardonic and cynical view.

Truth stumbles into us

The Dallas newspaper's Steve Blow (reg. required) is saying that if only Gerald Ford had told us about his questions about what George Bush was going to do in Iraq, the debate could have saved us. Journalist star Woodward got former President Ford to say some things, which come out at us now like him falling out of a helicopter, perhaps as a way to have the star's rapt attention. To say that this would have saved us is to have trouble in a marital relationship and say if only we had talked to Anna Nicole Smith's 91 year old husband before getting into the relationship everything would've been fine. To paraphrase Animal Farm, 'Any thing's possible but some things are more possible than others.'

The problem with this approach is that it really has to do with the 'Go/ No go' question with regard to the war. In regard to that question, I think you have to look at Kesher Talk's unmarked milestone. Could we have significantly turned over policy decisions to a group of notables there shortly after the overthrow of Saddam? That would be my speculation for what would have the best post 'Mission accomplished' course. I think you would have the inherent drive of the Sadr forces to dominate over other elements that wouldn't have been solved directly by this method. Nevertheless, I think this course which would have recapitulated the beginning of our own development. Those people largely had the 'hearts and minds' of the Iraqis as did the prosperous landowners and others at the start of America. In our plodding way though, we are hoping for and making the conditions for a democratic solution there in Iraq.

Update:
Tom Maguire has been reading in these subjects,
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/01/iraq_failure_of.html

The Economist (one of my linked bloggers had said all content was free. She works for them, apparently got the memo content confused) has a great lead article on the election, Iraq, and Bush. 'Don't punish the people of Iraq and by implication, also, ourselves (America) by leaving now when we can still get a better result because of the president's mistakes.' This point of view was valid for VN, and I believe we foolishly believe we can leave without the problem following us. I don't believe history will be as kind to us in Iraq. Part of the disappointment with the president perhaps reflects the contemporary view of history available in Woodward's new book, State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III, a good book.

The most interesting news has come out tonight about our 'coordination' of our acitivities with the Iraqis. Recently at Keshertalk, the following was noted,
Peters also points out the obvious about the Maliki Government and its effect on Iraq.

I lost faith in our engagement in Iraq last week. I can pinpoint the moment. It came when I heard that Maliki had demanded - successfully - that our military release a just-captured deputy of Muqtada al-Sadr who was running death squads.

As a former intelligence officer, that told me two things: First, Iraq's prime minister is betting on Muqtada to prevail, not us. Second, Muqtada, not the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, is now the most powerful man in Iraq...

We had an American Iraqi born translator captured. We should pursue his captors, we are not mercenaries for the Iraqi government.