They May Not Want What We Want For Them
Time for the neo-cons to consider the previously unthinkable: that the Iraqi's don't value freedom above other more historically-rooted forces of motivation. Order, tradition, family/clan, etc. -- these are enormously powerful motivators in the Middle-East. Neo-cons fallaciously assumed that Saddam was 80% or more of the problem. Oops,...looks like there are bigger forces at play over there.

Jeffersonian freedoms and personal liberties don't resonate in a country patched together from far more different interests than the colonies of early America. Simply removing the "bad guy" (and of course, he was) does not result in democracy. Nowhere near. We are now in the stage where the old suppressed hatreds and rivalries are starting to blossom again. Not hard to imagine how Iraqi's who barely remember the owrld before Saddam would gravitate to a religious or military strongman.

Without institutions that wield actual power, societies aren't societies at all. The power of credibility - which is ulimately the only power institutions wield - cannot be built by a foriegn power or a council. This cannot be done by an outside power, to whom true legitimacy and credibility (in the eyes of the occupied) are witheld. The U.S. would do well to start shifting the expectations of Iraq (and.....anyone remember Afghanistan?) to one of minimal reconstruction, passable elections, and US exit. This must be followed up by a public renunciation of power. We should then be prepared to take the high road when the elected government goes against us in order to show its independence. (Remember Turkey?) We will be forced to accept Iraqi decisions that come from a "democratic" government. Brent Scorwcroft warned us before the war.

It is not too early to start lowering the expectations for what the post-reconstruction Iraq means to us here at home. The reasons this matters are not related to any liberal "guilt". This matters because we, and nobody else, are going to face this sort of situation for the intermediate future.

Any one of you think that other nations will now be any less insistent that the U.S. MUST intervene here, MUST NOT intervene there? Ah, dreamers......... We needn't act/not act at the world's behest, but since it is U.S. interests, soldiers, dollars, and international standing at risk, shouldn't we as a nation take a good look at the total picture of invasion, regime change, reconstruction, etc.? This is a very different game than it used to be.