Learning from Iraq

Bush is not capable of learning from Iraq, so we have to.

Tristero, over at Hullabaloo, clearly has a lot of admiration for Josh Marshall, as do I. But he speaks an absolutely essential truth when he insists that it is not sufficient to discuss the competency with which the war in Iraq was planned or fought. Whether or not more troops would have made a difference, whether the Army should have been disbanded, whether a larger coalition would have saved the day, etc., etc.,  - are entirely irrelevant arguments. The basic idea of invading Iraq was absolutely stupid and immoral.

After being so wrong on Bush/Iraq, a reluctant admission that if you want to be dogmatic about it then I side with the 'impossible' dogmatists, makes me fear that when Cheney and Bush start up in earnest over Iran, the same misjudgment will doom any attempt to oppose it. (Tristero)

And he gets full marks for saying "'when' Bush and Cheney start up in earnest over Iran."

As I tried to point out in a previous post, Bush will bomb Iran within the next two years. Those who argue that it will be done better this time, that there will be no occupation, that he has learned from his mistakes; are merely enablers for a mean old drunk.

There are some slight changes int he cast of characters: instead of Wolfowitz, this time it's Muravchich; the role played by Ahmed Chalabi, will now be taken by Amir Abbas Fakhavar. Featured players: Bush, Cheney, Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, AIPAC, JINSA and the AEI remain the same.

Comments

[rick]

If one is interested in that which is in store for Iran, a good place to begin looking would be April / May 1967. Is Ahmadinejad any brighter than Nasser? Perhaps a tad, but not enough so that it will make any difference.

[bbbustard]

I'm not really sure that I follow the comparison here, but it might be because of my limited memory/knowledge of 1967. My own guess was that Nasser was actually a brighter man. I think of Ahmadinejad as pretty much just a lightweight, pretty face, kind of guy.