Vanity Fair Exclusive: Now They Tell Us
Neo Culpa (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/12/neocons200612?currentPage=1)

by David Rose VF.COM November 3, 2006

As Iraq slips further into chaos, the war's neoconservative boosters have turned sharply on the Bush administration, charging that their grand designs have been undermined by White House incompetence. In a series of exclusive interviews, Richard Perle, Kenneth Adelman, David Frum, and others play the blame game with shocking frankness. Target No. 1: the president himself.

[More... (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/12/neocons200612?currentPage=1)]

What does the competence of any American, including Congress or the Administration have to do with all the Iraqis who want to butcher each other?

You guys don't really buy all the Pundit stuff, do you?

Vanity Fair? Gimme a break, it is a fvcking fashion magazine for rich effete snobs. They need to stick to the Fall lineup and Annie Leibowitz photos.

You guys don't really buy all the Pundit stuff, do you?
Yeah, what could Perle, Adelman, and Frum possibly know about neoconservative foreign policy. :rolleyes:

Synopsize it for me.

I am to infer that these people whose names you dropped, are to held with high esteem.

What do these esteemed pundits have to say about the matter, in a nutshell?

After we won the war in Iraq, what did WE Americans do wrong? And after we won the war in Iraq, what did the Administration/Congress do wrong?

Synopsize it for me.

I am to infer that these people whose names you dropped, are to held with high esteem.

Not if you do not want to, but the are the ones who created and pushed the neo-conservative philosophy and political agende into the republican party and the white house. Five years ago Bush was their great triomph. The invasion of Iraq was the culmination of their political ambitions and was supposed to be their lasting legacy of a changed world order in which the USA and the republican party would rule supreme.
In other words: they share a large part of the responsibility for the fact that USA soldiers are in Iraq today.


After we won the war in Iraq, what did WE Americans do wrong? And after we won the war in Iraq, what did the Administration/Congress do wrong?

First of all you assume you actually won a war. You did not. Not the one you actually fought, and certainly not the one president Bush is proclaiming to be fighting.
What the USA army did was defeat the Iraqi standing army and occupy Iraq.
What has to happen afterwards is not something you and I are going to see eye to eye over anyway so I will not bother to repeat my opinion.
I just offer an analogy if you will: compare Germany in 1923 to Germany in 1950. Same country, much the same people. In both cases they had lost a big war 5 years before. One version of the country gave birth to the Nazis and some of the most horrible atrocities we have seen in history. The other gave birth to a peaceful democracy. The questions are: what made the difference between the two versions of Germany, and which version does Iraq today more closely resemble?


Eri

Not if you do not want to, but the are the ones who created and pushed the neo-conservative philosophy and political agende into the republican party and the white house. Five years ago Bush was their great triomph. The invasion of Iraq was the culmination of their political ambitions and was supposed to be their lasting legacy of a changed world order in which the USA and the republican party would rule supreme.
In other words: they share a large part of the responsibility for the fact that USA soldiers are in Iraq today.
I am not conservative. I am not neo conservative. I am not even Republican. So it would be good to know what difference, these so called 'esteemed' individuals have to say(even if I disagree with them).

First of all you assume you actually won a war.
Of course we won the war. If defined by removing a sovereign country's ruler, deposing its government. We won the war. Normally in war, the conquering country then possesses the conquered country, we have chosen not to do that(which we have a war right to).

You did not.
Says you, and who are you?

Not the one you actually fought, and certainly not the one president Bush is proclaiming to be fighting.
The one I wanted. Maybe not the one sold to you all. I don't care if you bought a load of crap.

What the USA army did was defeat the Iraqi standing army and occupy Iraq.
That is winning a war by any real definition.

What has to happen afterwards is not something you and I are going to see eye to eye over anyway so I will not bother to repeat my opinion.
That is only our job when we accept it.

I just offer an analogy if you will: compare Germany in 1923 to Germany in 1950. Same country, much the same people.
Buncha bloodthirsty fvcking assholes. But they over came it, because they are better than the Iraqis, so far. How goes that? Might go to show you that culture matters, maybe.

In both cases they had lost a big war 5 years before. One version of the country gave birth to the Nazis and some of the most horrible atrocities we have seen in history.
So far...perhaps.

The other gave birth to a peaceful democracy. The questions are: what made the difference between the two versions of Germany, and which version does Iraq today more closely resemble?
We shall see. If they want to continue living in the Middle Ages, they will. If they want to be globalized, and live with the rest of us, they have to prove themselves.

After we won the war in Iraq, what did WE Americans do wrong? And after we won the war in Iraq, what did the Administration/Congress do wrong?


Since you asked ...

The coalition purged the Ba'ath party after the war without putting in any replacement. The party was loyal to Saddam but ran everything in national and local government. With the party gone there was a power vacuum. This vacuum was filled by local militia, gangsters, and religious authority. This has propogated the power struggle as local people still trust the militias and religious leaders more than the US army and national government.

The coalition closed down the large nationalised industries after the war and tried to sell them to foreign investors. They famously built the defenses around Baghdad with imported concrete while the local concrete factory lay idle. The foreign investment never came and the industries froze. This created mass unemployment and the perfect recruiting ground for militias and terrorists.

How much do you actually know about the reconstruction of Iraq and the policies used? It doesn't get discussed much compared to the war on terrorism. If the Vanity Fair article does go into detail then it would be worth reading, even if it's in a fashion mag.

History will say we won in Iraq much lieke it says we did in Vietnam. :p At least, if winning is defined as acheiving your goals.

I've seen these ex-Neo Cons on TV a few times (believe me there's a lot of former neo-cons these days). I think the biggest thing they're recanting on is their foreign policy especially their policy of "pre-emption".

Since you asked ...

The coalition purged the Ba'ath party after the war without putting in any replacement. The party was loyal to Saddam but ran everything in national and local government. With the party gone there was a power vacuum. This vacuum was filled by local militia, gangsters, and religious authority. This has propogated the power struggle as local people still trust the militias and religious leaders more than the US army and national government.

The coalition closed down the large nationalised industries after the war and tried to sell them to foreign investors. They famously built the defenses around Baghdad with imported concrete while the local concrete factory lay idle. The foreign investment never came and the industries froze. This created mass unemployment and the perfect recruiting ground for militias and terrorists.

How much do you actually know about the reconstruction of Iraq and the policies used? It doesn't get discussed much compared to the war on terrorism. If the Vanity Fair article does go into detail then it would be worth reading, even if it's in a fashion mag.

This wouldnt be the first or last time a ruling party was purged and a power vacuum left behind. Where we americans went wrong was we stayed to help rebuild, we should of either claimed our prize or left it and seen where it went.

We're not the first nation to **** up and we wont be the last, this prob wont even be our last ****up. While I oppose the war and our administration I cant help but laugh at other nations and thier harsh opinions, like they have not ****ed up big time, or even repeating mistakes made in history.

World politics isnt too much differnt from US politics after all. Its all about talking until someone finally gets tired of it and acts, then raising them on shoulders if they do well, while taking your cut of the pie, or ridiculing and blaming them if things go wrong.

What does the competence of any American, including Congress or the Administration have to do with all the Iraqis who want to butcher each other?

Well, for one we shouldn't have bothered trying to impose democracy on Arabs. They are fundamentally incapable of it given their almost incessant need to be killing someone...anyone. But if we were going to try, we had to do so with a much bigger hammer and with less concern for making certain companies a bundle.

You guys don't really buy all the Pundit stuff, do you?

These people help form policy

Vanity Fair? Gimme a break, it is a fvcking fashion magazine for rich effete snobs. They need to stick to the Fall lineup and Annie Leibowitz photos.

Vanity Fair has long been more than fall lineups and leibowitz pictures. I swear, for a Californian you certainly sound alot like the worsts of the Midwest at times ;)

I love it, being called a rube and a hick because I don't subscribe to Vanity Fair or The New Yorker anymore.

Wanna know what else, I would hold you in lesser regard myself, if you invited me over and you had Martha Tivo'd and Architectural Digest on your coffee table.

All I imagine is some pretentious Fred Rated caricature, motioning with his hands and arms, "Look how smart I am, because I have all of the artifacts of Elite Intellectual Ineffectual Snobbery all over my pad."

Now if you had some slick Czech Bondage **** playing on your LCD, then I might consider you worthy of some esteem.

You people with your middle class values, morality, and materialism make me sick.

I love it, being called a rube and a hick because I don't subscribe to Vanity Fair or The New Yorker anymore.

Wanna know what else, I would hold you in lesser regard myself, if you invited me over and you had Martha Tivo'd and Architectural Digest on your coffee table.

All I imagine is some pretentious Fred Rated caricature, motioning with his hands and arms, "Look how smart I am, because I have all of the artifacts of Elite Intellectual Ineffectual Snobbery all over my pad."

Now if you had some slick Czech Bondage **** playing on your LCD, then I might consider you worthy of some esteem.

You people with your middle class values, morality, and materialism make me sick.

Ah. Reverse Snobbery :).