Not Democratic, Not Stable
Dr. Condi Rice, December 21, 2006
"This [Iraq] is a country that is worth the investment because once it emerges as a country that is a stabilizing factor, you'll have a very different kind of Middle East.
I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but if there's anything besides death and taxes I'm reasonably certain of, it is that Iraq is not now, and will not be any time soon, stable. And not being stable, it won't be democratic in any meaningful sense, either. These are points the administration and its cadre of lunatic talk show hosts and 101st Fighting Keyboarders have never figured out about military force: it's pretty good and flashy at blowing stuff and people up, but poorly equiped to rebuild stuff and people it's blown up.
About the best administration-apologists will be able to claim is that they rid the region of a potentially destructive and destabilizing force, which the U.S. government originally and for a number of years coddled--only to have of course replaced it with a series of smaller but actual destabilizing forces, any one of which could unite with Iran, Syria or Al Qaeda to form a still larger and still far more destructive and destabilizing force in the region.
While this has been common knowledge for the better part of at least a year, if not longer, the thing is the administration talking-action figures are still spouting about establishing stability and democracy in Iraq. And this means that either the administration is delusional or maliciously deceitful.
Well, OK, we know it's both. But what would be a welcome change is to have the major media networks acknowledge these realities and cease and desist from enabling the William Kristol's, William Bennet's, Frank Gaffney's, Ken Pollack's, Max Boot's and Ralph Peters of the pundit world and replacing them with people who actually were right about what we were getting into in Iraq?