Neocons blame Bush, not themselves for Iraq debacle

Neo Culpa: Politics & Power: vanityfair.com:
"To David Frum, the former White House speechwriter who co-wrote Bush's 2002 State of the Union address that accused Iraq of being part of an 'axis of evil,' it now looks as if defeat may be inescapable, because 'the insurgency has proven it can kill anyone who cooperates, and the United States and its friends have failed to prove that it can protect them.' This situation, he says, must ultimately be blamed on 'failure at the center'—starting with President Bush."

One rather important point glossed over in the paragraph above is that any sufficiently ruthless adversary can accomplish this feat. While I fault Bush for taking us into Iraq on the fool's errand of turning the place into a liberal democracy, Bush's policies are not responsible for the terror campaign going on in Iraq. There was no set of policies which would have produced any other result - perhaps the best reason of all for not invading Iraq, but I can't claim to have considered that angle in opposing the invasion.

Back when Bush was gearing up for this misadventure, I was convinced that it wouldn't work just by looking at the sad state of democratic efforts in the region.

Turkey's democracy was founded by a classic man on horseback (Attaturk) at the head of an army (of Turks) and stumbles along with constant backstage pressure from the army and occasional extra-constitutional forays into military rule.

Pakistan's democracy has had a few fits of life against a backdrop of military rule.

Iran, after the Shah, utilizes democratic forms; but, no candidate may run, no official may serve, no policy may be implemented that does not conform to the wishes of a self-perpetuating clerical junta.

Egypt flirts with democratic reforms, but each move toward democracy only serves to empower the most ruthless segments of the ideological spectrum like the Muslim Brotherhood.

Algeria found the military had to intervene repeatedly to keep the crazies from taking power via the ballot box.

Against that kind of backdrop, I was amazed that anyone would think a foreign, especially an "infidel Crusader" army, could impose a stable democracy on an artificial state long held together only by extreme terror.

Read the Vanity Fair article for some interesting insights into neocon thinking about Bush and the war.