The National Interest
The National Interest is one of those weird quarterly magazines you always see in the meganewstands of Manhattan but never see anyone buy. I buy one every year or so when something catches my attention, and this spring's ussue was broght to my attention by The McLaughlin Group this weekend. They, actually McLaughlin himself, referenced an article described in the table of contents thus:
Does Iraq Matter?
By: Morton Abramowitz. Realists, neocons, and liberals all agree that American failure in Iraq would be a catastrophe beyond Iraq. Really? How exactly?
The quotes from the article McLaughlin presented seriously challenged the validity of the ubiquitous "stay the course in Iraq" position as well as the "we can't afford to leave Iraq now" position, though you can't tell that from the excerpt which is all the magazine allows non-subscribers online:
The following is an excerpt. Full versions of the article are available to subscribers only.
The invasion of Iraq was in great part a role of the dice. The only certain consequence was an end to the Saddam Hussein regime--an unmitigated blessing--and to its potential military threats to its neighbors. But beyond that, there were no certainties and apparently little introspection and analysis in the top ranks of the executive branch. The future of Iraq was rather in the eyes of the beholder. Iraq policy is now increasingly a response to developments on the ground there and the vagaries of our domestic politics. Ending the Arab-Israel conflict would have far more influence on transforming the Arab world than creating a new Iraqi government.
Knowing what we now know about Iraq, one could make the argument that we would have been better off if we had spent only a fraction of the hundreds of billions our Iraq venture will end up costing us in bribing Arabs and Israelis into a settlement and enforcing it. Neither the United States nor any other democracy for that matter ever works that way. Hopefully, Iraq will turn out reasonably well. This is still certainly possible. Power, much money and better livelihood can contribute significantly. History, however, shows that short-term military occupations have rarely produced successful nation-building. "Staying the course" might just mean digging in. The best that can be said with some certainty is that to stay or leave Iraq is going to be messy, costly and engage our energies and public discussion for a long time to come.
In essence, Abramowitz' argument says we should consider whether it's possible to achieve the administrations' goal at all under the current circumstances.
BTW, Tony Blankley, weekly participant and editorial page editor of The Washington Times, is a shill so deep up the administration's butt he should be an honorary proctologist
