As for the GULAG analogy again, it fails to be relevant on even the modest standards you have set for it. About how many guests of the Soviet penal system had occasion to listen to Ronald Reagan’s greatest speeches on the inside? That is, of course, unless you think the USSR was recording Reagan’s speeches, translating them, and piping them into their prisons to boost prisoner morale.

These arguments do not lack nuance, only plausibility.

What I pointed out was that the Lebanese *felt* that they had our honest support. They could not be certain we would support militarily, but then again, with crazy Texan, maybe he would. Likewise, Syrian government could not be 100% certain that it was safe to do as it liked, and the Lebanese knew that the Syrian government was in that state of uncertainty.

My reference to the gulags was to point out that there is historical precedent for US actions to give people hope and courage.

As for Iran, I don’t know precisely what you mean by “misbehaving.” The reports out of Iran have indicated political upheaval, but mostly at a low level and quickly suppressed. It’s hard to tell if the Iran people are taking any courage from our actions in Iraq.

Or did you refer to the mullahs’ behavior? Well, they disagree violently with our goals. I would predict that they do exactly what they are doing.

Let’s say that instead of going home, the Syrians decided to invade Lebanon to reassert their authority. Who would have stopped them? Us? With what army? Where would we have gotten the troops to do it. Transfer them from Iraq, Afghanistan, what?

Wheras if we didn’t inavde Iraq, we would have a lot of free troops at our disposal to intervene as we did in 1991. So, how did our intervention in Iraq make people in Lebanon safer? Again, I cite Iran which is misbehaving more since since Iraq invasion.

As for the Soviet GULAG, perhaps your analogy would be more compelling if the prisoners heard Reagan’s speech and started a mass uprising because they knew that Reagan would launch an invasion of Siberia if the Red Army tried to put the insurrection down.

Again, I didn’t start this discussion, but if people make silly statement about Iraq, I am going to challenge them.

The Lebanese felt brave enough to demonstrate because they knew that THIS TIME they had an ally, a large, well-armed ally, on their side, which would considerably mitigate the risks to their lives. I.e., hope against hope, they could believe that there is a chance that this large well-armed ally would intervene militarily. Moreover, they knew that Syria could not be quite sure that we would do nothing.

It’s analogous to the reactions of the prisoners of the Soviet gulags when they heard the president of the most powerful nation on earth refer to the government that jailed them as an “evil empire.”

***
As for your question to SandyP, what’s the point? How many times are you going to fight the war about the war?

SandyP,
Do you have any reason to believe the invasion and occupation of Iraq would have gone better if done in 1991 instead of 2001?

I’m sure you think you’re very clever, but the fact is you didn’t answer me at all.

I didn’t claim that the Lebanese had demonstrated “because” of us. I claim only that they had the courage to demonstrate because of us.

Try again.

Finished Korea in 53, finishined Khomeini in 79…

re: cedar revolution, It’s interesting that you credit this to the invasion of Iraq rather than to what actually triggered it, the assassination of Rafik Hariri. But, as long as we’re creating the feekings of democracy and empowerment wafting off Iraq for creating popular uprisings that were actually caused by the death of an important political figure, why not just go ahead and credit it for the Tiananmen Square demontsrations as well? Democracy not only wafts over countries, but back in time as well.

re: Qhaddafi. He got a sweetheart deal in exchange for some secondhand Pakistani centerfuges. He’s been trying to improve politcal and economic relations with the U.S./West for some time so that when his besuited son inherits the family business (i.e. Libya), he will be in a position to make some real cash. If this were a sudden reversal in Libyan policy rather than a cotinuation of it, you may have a point. What further undermines your point is the Iranian reaction to the situation in Iraq. They are utterly fearless because they know we don’t have the manpower to threaten them because we’re committed in Iraq. Qhadaffi knows the same.

As for what everyone else thinks, it is important if you are trying to make an argument about credibility on the world stage. If you want to say that we’ve lost credibility because everyone else is wrong, as you seem to be now saying, that is an entirely different argument altogether.

I don’t know what “left” you’re talking about that needs to move on here. Personally, I’m not really that “left” and furthermore, I didn’t bring the subject up. I am merely responding to poor arguments that others are making here.

Keith Indy,
You are using a very narrow definition of progess. I am thrilled that the airport road has finally been secured, but country-wide, there are half again as many daily attacks at the end of 2005 than there were at the end of 2004. Is this your notion of progress?

Also, you give this two option now or later thing with respect to invading Iraq, and yet you have not yet demonstrated why it had to be done at all.

Sandy, as for unfinished business biting us in the rear, I’d say that our invasion of Iraq is biting us far more firmly in the rear than either Iran or North Korea.

klfrz, I am aware that the straw man is your main specialty, but the, “You’re a Saddam Lover” is not even a good straw man.