My Manifesto: The Incoherent Ramblings of a Madman

Some extracts from "Dissension Grows In Senior Ranks On War Strategy" from the washingtonpost.com cited at http://story.news.yahoo.com/:

Peter Galbraith, a former U.S. ambassador to Croatia, wrote in the New York Review of Books that "patience with foreign occupation is running out, and violent opposition is spreading. Civil war and the breakup of Iraq are more likely outcomes than a successful transition to a pluralistic Western-style democracy."

Army Col. Paul Hughes, a veteran Army strategist who is involved in formulating Iraq policy. "I promised myself, when I came on active duty, that I would do everything in my power to prevent that [sort of strategic loss] from happening again. Here I am, 30 years later, thinking we will win every fight and lose the war, because we don't understand the war we're in."

"The idea that Iraq can be miraculously and quickly turned into a shining example of democracy that will 'transform' the Middle East requires way too much fairy dust and cultural arrogance to believe" (says an un-named "senior" military person - sure it all sounds good, and makes entire sense, but these writers and their "sources" - who knows whether someone of note really said it or not!)

My point, if I actually have one, is that if you don't understand the war you will lose. The people of America are over in Iraq fighting an enemy they do not understand in a country they do not understand with an objective they do not understand. The Iraqi's are fighting an enemy they understand in a country they understand with an objective they understand.

Regardless of the outcome it will not be a good one for the people of Iraq nor will it be a good outcome for American foreign relations.

Waging war to make peace is contradictory by definition.