DISHOOOOONESTY, IS SUCH A LONELY WORD....

Virginia_1776 is up now, making the classic dishonest hawk argument about Iraq, that, "...a democratic Iraq is better than being under Saddam," and that, "....the Iraqis can make their own decisions now, which is an improvement." This argument is stale, mendacious, and dangerously naive. And that's not counting how much dumber it is when JesSeado is spouting it.

Sam Rosenfeld and Matt Yglesias, of The American Prospect cover this terrotiry well in their new essay on the incompetence dodge. What we can now see is that the idea of invading a Middle Eastern nation that is a powderkeg of sectarian animosity, and hoping to democratize them at gunpoint, is, quite literally, an impossibility. Virginia is arguing based on a completely false premise. Iraq id NOT better off now than under Saddam, and is clearly heading for disaster. Many officials think that the situation is, EVEN NOW, an undeclared civil war. For Virginia to try to make us weep with the joyous reclamation of Iraq for liberal democracy is mind-numbingly stupid.

And this is part and parcel of the traditional conservative accusation, revived for a new era, that anti-war liberals are actually on the other side somehow. "Would you rather Saddam was still in power?" they say with crossed arms and smug smirks. Why don't you ask Brent Scowcroft, the first George Bush's National Security Advisor?

A principal reason that the Bush Administration gave no thought to unseating Saddam was that Brent Scowcroft gave no thought to it. An American occupation of Iraq would be politically and militarily untenable, Scowcroft told Bush. And though the President had employed the rhetoric of moral necessity to make the case for war, Scowcroft said, he would not let his feelings about good and evil dictate the advice he gave the President.

It would have been no problem for America's military to reach Baghdad, he said. The problems would have arisen when the Army entered the Iraqi capital. "At the minimum, we'd be an occupier in a hostile land," he said. "Our forces would be sniped at by guerrillas, and, once we were there, how would we get out? What would be the rationale for leaving? I don't like the term 'exit strategy' -- but what do you do with Iraq once you own it?"

Scowcroft stopped for a moment. We were sitting in the offices of the Scowcroft Group, a consulting firm he heads, in downtown Washington. He appeared to be weighing the consequences of speaking his mind. His speech is generally calibrated not to give offense, especially to the senior Bush and the Bush family. He is eighty and, by most accounts, has been content to cede visibility to the larger personalities with whom he has worked.

James Baker told me that he and Scowcroft got along well in part because Scowcroft let Baker speak for the Administration. I learned from people who know Scowcroft that he finds it painful to be seen as critical of his best friend’s son, but in the course of several interviews prudence several times gave way to impatience. "This is exactly where we are now," he said of Iraq, with no apparent satisfaction. "We own it. And we can't let go. We're getting sniped at. Now, will we win? I think there's a fairchance we'll win. But look at the cost."

The first Gulf War was a success, Scowcroft said, because the President knew better than to set unachievable goals. "I'm not a pacifist," he said. "I believe in the use of force. But there has to be a good reason for using force. And you have to know when to stop using force." Scowcroft does not believe that the promotion of American-style democracy abroad is a sufficiently good reason to use force.

"I thought we ought to make it our duty to help make the world friendlier for the growth of liberal regimes," he said. "You encourage democracy over time, with assistance, and aid, the traditional way. Not how the neocons do it."

The neoconservatives -- the Republicans who argued most fervently for the second Gulf war -- believe in the export of democracy, by violence if that is required, Scowcroft said. "How do the neocons bring democracy to Iraq? You invade, you threaten and pressure, you evangelize." And now, Scowcroft said, America is suffering from the consequences of that brand of revolutionary utopianism. "This was said to be part of the war on terror, but Iraq feeds terrorism," he said.

So you see, Virginia and other neocons, even the previous Bush officials knew, not that invading Iraq was risky, but that it was INCAPABLE of leading to a stable democracy. You're wrong, and you can't ever be right about this.

And hey, where are those WMDs again?

JC