I cringe everytime I hear the President say, “We will stay the course until we have a democratic Iraq.”

This is a huge error in misunderstanding fundamental Islam. The truth is that all Muslims are subject to the government of God only. At least in principle. They do not want democracy because this represents a flawed and corrupt government of human origin. A desire for a theocracy, a government of Allah, is their goal and the struggle to achieve this ia a major reason for the terrorism and violence in the world today.

I think we would be better off to work with a moderate faction of Islam, probably Shihite, to establish a government in Iraq. If we are going to force democracy down their throats when they don’t want it, then we ensure that death and chaos will continue.

One other obvious factor. (Why can’t the Bush administration see this?) Iraq is not ready for democracy and does not deserve it, at least not yet. Democracy is precious and noble. It requires, above all else, that it citizens recognize it as worth cherishing and defending.

Mr. Auster is right; among other things, Bush confuses method and objective. But that has been characteristic of everything his Administration has done since the start of this stupid war. They have never even been able to decide which (incorrect) historical analogy to obsess over, and have adhered to schedules for (not) “turning over sovereignty” that would have been considered fantastic in the occupied countries after World War II. Perhaps we should have expected all this. Even while telling us that it was necessary to attack Iraq, the Bushites could not stop insisting, in defiance of logic and experience, that it had been right to stop in 1991. Is there anything to these people but an addiction to office, empty slogans, and pretending that they have never made a mistake?

Please explain why “conservatives” are going mad for democracy. Doesn’t the Right mistrust not only excessive democracy, but democracy itself?

“The truth is that all Muslims are subject to the government of God only. At least in principle. They do not want democracy because this represents a flawed and corrupt government of human origin.”

Sounds admirable. No king but Jesus, etc.

“Is there anything to these people but an addiction to office, empty slogans, and pretending that they have never made a mistake?”

In fairness to Bush, he has done some very difficult and courageous things. If he had been addicted to office he would have coasted on his enormous popularity after 9/11 and the defeat of the Taliban and would not have staked his whole presidency on a very risky venture in Iraq that he sincerely felt was necessary for our national safety.

It’s one thing to disagree with Bush strongly; it’s another to treat him as though he were a complete nullity.

Call me a multiculturalist, but one line of the speech jumped off the screen at me. The presence of 135,000 troops in Iraq doesn’t cease to be an occupation on June 30 simply because Bush says it does. As long as the Iraqis think it’s an occupation, they’ll treat it like one and as long as the troops are treated like occupiers, they’ll have no choice but to respond like occupiers, with curfews, checkpoints, closures, raids, roundups and interrogations.

There was a discussion of the definition of guerilla warfare on a previous thread. One part of that definition is popular support. The guerilla must be able to move through the population like a fish through the sea, as Chairman Mao used to say. That means the tactics of counter-insurgency, any attempts we make to find the guerillas or isolate them or cut down their mobility, are inevitably going to harm the civilian population. If the guerillas didn’t initially have that popular support, the population turns against them, refuses to feed and shelter them, eventually turns them in. If they did have support, they get recruits.

An example from the early days after the fall of Baghdad: There was a series of car-bombings and drive-by shootings of American soldiers in Baghdad. The army increased the number of checkpoints and soldiers began shooting at cars that failed to stop quickly enough. Inevitably, they shot some civilians by mistake and handed the resistance its first propaganda victory. You can imagine how it went: “Is this democracy? Is this liberation?”

This is why “stay the course” won’t work. It assumes that there are a fixed number of guerillas and in a year or two or five, we’ll find and kill the last one. But the number isn’t fixed. Guerillas can recruit, and worse yet, by following the counter-insurgency script, we can recruit for them.

“This is why ‘stay the course’ won’t work. It assumes that there are a fixed number of guerillas and in a year or two or five, we’ll find and kill the last one. But the number isn’t fixed. Guerillas can recruit, and worse yet, by following the counter-insurgency script, we can recruit for them.”

That’s what I’ve been saying for the last nine months or so. “Winning” means no more insurgents and jihadis coming at us. But what if they keep coming? What do we do then? “Stay the course” is NOT AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. That’s why I’ve been saying that we have no strategy for victory. Basically Bush is just hoping that the insurgency will quiet to an acceptable level so that the new government can survive and we can leave. That may happen. I hope it does happen. But if it does happen, it will be by good luck as much as by good strategy.

“But if it does happen, it will be by good luck as much as by good strategy.”

And since Bush feels protected by God, it may happen. Bush has that Christian glow that many Christians adore him for.