Teribus--

Sorry I haven't had a chance to get to this recently. But I certainly don't want you to feel neglected.

It pains me beyond measure, you can imagine, to have to point out some problems with your logic, reading etc.

Sure is big of you to finally admit that Iraq has no WMD's. But it's a mystery how such a masterful foreign policy analyst as yourself could be quite so gullible as to swallow hook line and sinker the feeble story the Bush regime was peddling.

Sorry, your "FACT"s are pretty transparent meaningless statements. For instance, we will never know if there would have been "subsequent terrorist attacks" on the US if Bush had dedicated all his attention to Osama--and let the UN inspectors continue in Iraq. And you say we should be so grateful to Mr, Bush for protecting us-----by invading Iraq? And of course if there had been another terrorist attack on the US after 9-11, you and the other giant intellects who support Bush would have claimed that proved Bush was right to fear al Qaeda--and right to invade Iraq, since there was a link between Saddam and al Qaeda.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

As far as the wonderful accomplishments of Bush's Iraq war--as the #1 Bush cheerleader you might want to check that bleeding heart leftist organ, the Economist--issue of 24 March 2007--especially the article on Iraq 4 years on. For instance: "It is now absurd to expect Iraq to serve as a democratic inspiration--it has done more to inspire jihad".

Not that I expect you to recognize that fact--after all it doesn't fit with your comfortable assumptions about how Western use of force is virtually always right--and certainly was right in the case of the Iraq war. If you protest that this is not your view, I invite you to cite instances of when Western use of force outside Europe since World War II was not justified.

And don't bother with your pathetic transparent falsehood about how opponents of the Iraq war want to surrender to al Qaeda. As I and others have pointed out, many Iraq war opponents, myself included, were totally in favor of attacking Afghanistan and chasing down--and capturing Osama.



I wouldn't want to imply, of course, that you are a Western military fossil who can't grasp anything outside your narrow military experience. Perish the thought.

Though sometimes, it's a bit hard to shake that impression.

For instance the good old "chain of command" business. You lurch crazily from one extreme to the other, desperately trying--without much success, sorry to say-- to squeeze the Iraq situation into the straitjacket of your limited military experience.

First Sadr with his "chain of command" will enforce discipline--and of course you provide absolutely no evidence. But that's how real armies--or gangsters--- behave, and, in your mind, Sadr is either a gangster or the head of an army. Anything outside this is a bit baffling for you.

Now you speculate "Sadr's Mahdi army might be breaking up"--again with no evidence. But this time you attribute this idea to me. Direct quote, please. Thanks so much.

Then you make another wild absurd statement--blubbering about how lack of a chain of command will make Sadr's "army" easier to "dust up"--in your, pardon the language, smugly stupid phrase. Wrong again. To put it in terms you might possibly grasp, it's franchises, not IBM.

Propaganda campaign--you're right, I haven't convinced anybody--since the vast majority of thinking English-speakers didn't need me or anybody else to point out the obvious.

Of course their egos are not riding on denying the obvious.



But probably the most spectacularly obvious misreading you've made is your favorite theme of how the Sunnis had best realize they are not in charge, deserve no consideration, if they don't like the new order they should leave Iraq--etc. ad nauseam.

While I kept trying patiently to instruct you--with little success--you're not the quickest study, it appears--that the #1 issue is the necessity that the Sunnis realize they are not being shut out of power---specifically, I said, more than once: the Sunnis must: 1) be able to trust the police--(still not accomplished) and 2) be guaranteed more oil income than would accrue just to the "Sunni parts" of Iraq--in theory now conceded by Maliki--but, as usual, the devil is in the....

And every time I gently tried to explain the facts to you,, you blustered on about how the Sunnis should just accept the new situation. Sorry, that's not how to deal with an insurgency--you actually have to make it worth their while to not support the rebels. And even though it goes against your cherished dogma--threats and use of force is not always the best way to solve the problem. After all, look what a wonderful success Britain had with your idea circa 1775--1783 in North America. And at the start of that period, virtually no American colonist wanted independence.

Well done, good job.

And if you think I said that Maliki's government would cut off the Sunnis--direct quote please. What I said is that the Maliki government had best not try to cut off the Sunnis--and that--citing that well-known foreign policy sage Shania Twain-- Maliki's words "don't impress me much."

Sorry I'll have to stop trying to instruct you tonight. It is, after all, a job for Sisyphus.

Looking forward to your next missive--hoping that it might have a little more to do with reality.

Well, I can dream.

Speaking of which.

Sweet dreams.