The George and Tony Show

Does the new Democratic majority have enough fortitude to even contemplate impeaching Bush? 

By the way, it seems to me as though the best case scenario for the US is a dictator who is on the same page as the oil companies: large concessions, limited freedoms, infrastructure in need of external development, and an aristocracy that does not work to the benefit of a middle class or lower class (usually bought off cheaply as "the cost of doing business"). The second best case scenario is a Western-style democracy with a "re-culturated" population with Western values and no commitment to ownership of their indigenous resources. That's a very tough nut to crack, but it can be done. The American music industry and big-time collegiate athletics are proof of that. You can participate (or vote) as the case may be, but the outcome is already known. The worst case scenario is not what is presently happening in Iraq, but what is happening in Iran. In nation states or regions where identity congeals around a bond that supercedes the appeal of Western trinkets (Islam or Pan-Arabism), it is difficult to achieve Western aims without resorting to violence.

The case of Iraq appears, to me, as one of Best Case Scenario #1 gone bad.  Repressive dictators have long been favorite agents of US international policy (in the same way that brutal Southern Democrats held sway after slavery).  Hussein fit this bill to a tee.  He decided to alter the rules of the game - and his patrons sought to bush him back in place.  Saddam emerged as a willing combatant against Iran (Worst Case Scenario #1) and was supported for 8 long years with all manner of weapons, including those nasty chemical weapons.  As a secular dictator, Saddam even evinced elements of Best Case Scenario #2.  By introducing Western-style elements into Iraq, Hussein contributed to a foundation for indoctrination into a "concession culture."

In many respects, his dalliances with the West hearkened back to early connections between Iraqi leadership and the British.  Iran, though, remains a stalwart in their outright rejection of imperialist claims to dictate terms on any and all matters relating to energy: nuclear, natural gas, oil or other.

Given the longer term objective, it's not clear to me that the US engagement in Iraq has been a failure.   The US has removed a leader who posed as their BCS #1 and #2.  They removed the infrastructure of his party and their base of support...and what remains is a battle for hearts and minds in which the US troops are largely relegated to the sidelines.  The number of US fatalities amounts to about 3 months work for the Sunni and Shiite fighters.  These are acceptable battle field losses - and the political damage, honestly, has been minimal.  Republicans have lost the House and Senate, but the Democrats are not on the verge of an FDR or Clinton presidency.  There are still plenty of domestic issues for Republicans to restore themselves - and even "create" a new type of Republican - that Pat Buchanan kind - the kind that could be more appealing to Red Staters than ever before.

The US engagement has allowed for the installation of a military presence in areas it did not heretofore exist.  This engagement has even given the US a pretext for engaging Iran and Syria (as in...1) We rejected you and called you the Axis of Evil 2) We Need You to Save Face 3) You Saw Through Our Ruse 4) You're Really Evil - we must attack!)  This engagement also positions the US where it wants to be with respect to high priority conduits for energy resources (oil/gas pipelines feeding Russia and China.  Given all of this, I am hard pressed to consider this a failure.  In fact, I suspect that when history books talk about how the big conflict with the US and China tipped off, they'll point to this particular series of engagements as seminal in that evolution.

Last night conducted a Town Hall meeting on domestic issues - something about a War on the Middle Class. This is exactly what I was thinking about yesterday in discussing the need for Republicans to jump to the domestic issues - and act as though they have little to do with Iraq. It will be interesting to see how the media supports the Republicans in easing through this escape hatch.

I don't have my Art of War handy, but Sun Tzu talks at length about the tactics that are required on different types of ground - and Iraq was never a nation to be seized.  It remains a region to be strategically dominated - control of oil fields, etc.  As long as Sunnis and Shias are bustin' caps at one another on the eastern side of the country, it's all good in the West and in the South of the country.  The overwhelming majority of the people live in the East and Northern part of the nation...Saddam's economic gambit has been thwarted.  Iran has not received the level of international support one might expect given their repeated disavowals of attempts to build a nuclear arsenal - and the inability of inspectors to find a smoking gun.

If the battle plan was really to seize Iraq (which I doubt), that plan was foolhardy and bound for failure.  If the plan was merely to give the appearance of that effort while pursuing greater strategic (read energy) imperatives, then the approach appears to have been successful.  As I've said, the number of casualties are totally acceptable in warfare.  The budget costs are totally acceptable given the alternative - and if someone had to take a hit - the consequences for a few Republican politicos is minor.  Those folks in the executive branch will do what they've always done - head off to the private sector and to the world of think tanks to hide out for a few years - and then, after they've focused on the failure of the Democrats to protect America from the growing scourge of terrorism AND castigated Dems for pissing away hard-earned white dollars on social programs, they'll return to the White House and a Congressional majority in 10 to 12 years.

All in all, that's an acceptable strategic approach to both domestic and international relations.  This cycle has played out three or four times since FDR left office.  In the cyclical view of US politics, these folks have nothing to fear but fear itself...and you're right, there's always Africa.

I'm not prepared to argue that. I do incline toward the belief that the Presidency is a "representative position" in that the leader does not make decisions in a vacuum. Given W's circle of association (Daddy CIA/FBI; Rumseld (2x DOD); Cheney; Baker, etc.) there is little room for me to believe that his brilliance or stupidity is relevant. It's a strain for me to think that HW lets his little dumb dumb have free reign on important shit. These guys all go way, way back with each other. I mean, can you imagine a situation where you have a number of children and the one with the least demonstrable prowess inherits the family business, but is left to his own devices at a crucial time - while surrounded by you (the father) and your circle of associates who built that business. It seems highly unlikely - and not the type of thing someone would do with a hardware store, but less the presidency of the yet-to-be United States of America. I guess I am prepared to argue that. Whaddaya know!