Along with the “benchmark” line, it’s interesting to follow the “more troops”/Rumsfeld-has-to-go line. This was an important line of criticism before the surge. When Bush did send more troops and did get rid of Rumsfeld, the line was, “too little, too late.” Now that there’s progress due to the surge and Gates’s leadership, the “more troops/Rumsfeld” line is forgotten. This is the clearest evidence that these “critics”, while exercising their patriotic rights to criticize, are not being honest. Plainly, they’re anti American (or dupes of anti Americans) and just cast about for a plausible handle to create “dissidence” (which is also supremely patriotic, of course). I find it difficult to imagine how an American could or our increasing our influence in the most volatile region of the world while at the same time increasing freedom in that same region. If you want to be anti American, fine. There are millions and millions of you in the world. But don’t try to fool people into thinking that you’re patriotic about it. That smacks of the “fifth column”. The neo colonial argument is only one of the many arguments that the Democrats/Obama will be pulling out of their hats:
1. Strategic mistake: we damaged the geopolitical system. Among other things, the Iraq war has increased Iran’s influence.
2. Humanitarianism: we caused an immense number of baby deaths, which can not be justified by any short-term strategic benefits.
3. “Bush lied”. This one will never go away.
4. The Iraq war is a distraction from the “real fight” against al Qaida. This is sure-fire. One can always say the bin Laden got away because or our incompetence and that we face a strategic threat from them, which is undiminished and even strengthened by the Iraq war. Then one gets a lot of sage nodding from the intellectuals.
