The Dish

He writes:

I am one of the Americans most untouched by the war going on. I have no friends or family in the military, and to extend that even further, none of my friends have any friends or family in the military. I live in a nice secure bubble, where I get to enjoy a lifestyle amongst the highest in human history.  I received a tax reduction so I get to enjoy the fruits of my labors more than I might have otherwise. The war affects me not at all. I recognize the mistakes made, and consider our entire exercise in the middle east to be futile at best, harmful to our country at worst.

Yet, I remain ambivalent. I decided, as long as nothing is asked of me, I will continue to turn my head from the events. The moment a sacrifice is asked of me, I will turn actively against it. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I mean any sacrifice. A dime in taxes to pay for rebuilding an army Bush has misused would be too much.

A reader contrasts and compares:

The population of Japan was about 72,000,000 in 1945. There were about 350,000 U.S. troops occupying the country in 1945 (plus another 40,000 allied troops. In terms of residents per soldier, the ratio is approximately 185 Japanese people per occupying soldier.

What about Iraq? The Iraqi population numbers about 26,000,000 people. If you consider only U.S. soldiers (160,000), and exclude the Iraqi Army and other coalition soliders, there are about 163 Iraqis per U.S. soldier. Now, if you add in the contracted private security personnel (many are former soldiers), who number about 100,000, the ratio of Iraqis to armed U.S. soldier or security officer drops from 163 to 100.

Either way, there were significantly fewer occupying soldiers per resident in post-war Japan compared to the present situation in Iraq.

How do we explain the difference between the cases of post-war Japan and Iraq? While not dismissing the extreme Shinto state-religion, militarism and aggression of the Japanese people during the WWII era, there are other cultural and religious factors that are important with respect to the present-day Iraqi situation. I would conjecture one of the most important of these is the issue of politicized Islam. But how to deal with assassins who kill in the name of Allah is a question that Muslims must face. President Bush’s plan to send 20,000 more troops will likely obscure where the ultimate responsibility lays, and prevent the Arab and Muslim worlds, and ultimately Iraqis themselves, from recognizing and assuming the responsibility they face.

Surging the troops by 20,000, or even establishing a police state (Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of people to keep a lid on his kettle of simmering hatreds), will not be not sufficient to quell human beings who are intent on cutting their brothers’ throats.

I agree. Withdrawing places the responsibility for the Islamist threat where it lies: on Muslims in the Middle East. Only they can solve their own pathologies. We have lost a chance to guide this process; so we may as well let it play out on its own. If it means $100 a barrel of oil, great.

In a stunning sign of how the GOP might become a significant opponent of a surge in Iraq, hard-right theocon and presidential candidate, Senator Sam Brownback, opposes sending more troops to Iraq. Money quote:

I do not believe that sending more troops to Iraq is the answer. Iraq requires a political rather than a military solution. In the last two days, I have met with Prime Minister Maliki, with two deputy presidents and the president of the Kurdish region. I came away from these meetings convinced that the United States should not increase its involvement until Sunnis and Shi’a are more willing to cooperate with each other instead of shooting at each other.

I see his point.

That’s it, apparently. Phased in slowly, with a mere 10,000 or so Iraqi government soldiers. To retake Baghdad block by block. I’ll be fascinated to know if even Fred Kagan thinks this is sufficient. But I’ll wait for the details tonight. Here’s the White House’s broad rationale. I have to say I’m shocked by its naivete. Here’s the regional strategy:

Iraqi:

    * Vigorously engage Arab states.
    * Take the lead in establishing a regional forum to give support and help from the neighborhood.
    * Counter negative foreign activity in Iraq.
    * Increase efforts to counter PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party).

Coalition:

    * Intensify efforts to counter Iranian and Syrian influence inside Iraq.
    * Increase military presence in the region.
    * Strengthen defense ties with partner states in the region.
    * Encourage Arab state support to Government of Iraq.
    * Continue efforts to help manage relations between Iraq and Turkey.
    * Continue to seek the region’s full support in the War on Terror.

It makes Baker-Hamilton look realistic.

Mark Blumenthal notes a wide discrepancy in the polls about support for a surge – but all of them are anemic. Below is Charles Franklin’s helpful graph on public attitudes to the war over the last four years. The last time more than 50 percent of the American public believed the Iraq war was "worth it" was in early 2004. Here’s Franklin’s analysis.

A conservative wonders what the movement has become. Money quote:

Into this disorderly scene strode George W. Bush, touting a compassionate conservatism that accepted the present size of government (or at least resolved to stop arguing about it) and strove to build an enduring Republican majority by increments, appealing to soccer-cum-security moms, immigrants, and minorities. Though the strategy contributed to victory in several elections, it came with high costs. Literally: the new prescription drug entitlement will cost untold billions (though it will save some hospitalization costs, too). More important in the short term, compassionate conservatism eviscerated the GOP’s reform ambitions. By abandoning the public case for limited government, Bush’s spiritless conservatism left the administration, and especially Congress, adrift and spendthrift.

Well, I’ve put in my two cents.

A fascinating analysis of a great gay, Catholic writer.

Here’s a YouTube edited from Mitt Romney’s 1994 debate with Ted Kennedy for the Senate. Listening to his convictions a decade ago, you can see just how massively his message has changed since then. That may be due to an intellectual and spiritual evolution; or it could be total political cynicism. Make your own mind up.

I’ll be blogging from Capitol Hill tonight on the president’s speech, and will be doing post-speech commentary on Anderson Cooper’s show on CNN. Stay tuned tonight.

A conservative cares!