Want Living Proof that Nation-Building does not work?

Here you go, a video of New York Times reporter John Burns, who, by the way, was the best person covering the Iraq War.

The Video: (H/T HotAir.com)

Ed Morrissey makes a very important point:

On Iraq, it’s hard to see how Obama could have improved the situation. He followed the SOFA pact that George W. Bush negotiated with Nouri al-Maliki, and the Iraqi government made it clear they wanted us to stick to that schedule. If the Iraqis want us out entirely by the end of next year, we have little choice but to comply; to do otherwise would be a de facto reoccupation that will not fly well here at home or abroad.  However, I’d say it’s entirely likely that Baghdad will rethink that final phase and ask us to remain for logistics, training, and air and sea protection for the next several years, and then the question will be whether Obama will agree to it or insist on a full withdrawal, even if it means the collapse of the nascent democracy in Iraq.

Afghanistan is a different problem, but one with potentially the same result.  Obama owns Afghanistan more than he does Iraq, having made the decision himself to add more troops and get more aggressive, which means a failure there can’t be left on the doorstep of his predecessor.  If Obama starts withdrawing from both fronts as they deteriorate, he will at least be the man who lost Afghanistan, if not Iraq as well, just as he has to prepare to convince Americans to give him another four years as Commander-in-Chief.  For that reason, I doubt we’ll see a significant drawdown in either theater, and Obama will just have to remind the Left that they have nowhere else to go in 2012.

Ever notice how Neo-Conservatives will never say Bush screwed up with Iraq, at all? They will never admit, that there was an intelligence error — never. That is what Party loyalty does to a person.

Anyhow, some good reading about Nation-Building over at The American Conservative:

“Nation-building is the most prominent — and most important — part of the neocon doctrine,” wrote Jed Babbin in the American Spectator. “And the decision to pursue it is the principal reason that we are losing in Afghanistan, Iraq is falling apart, and the real enemy — the terror-sponsoring nations — have grown stronger.”

None of these writers can accurately be described as a budding noninterventionist. But most conservatives who opposed the Iraq War from the beginning and favored no more than a limited mission in Afghanistan can agree with them on the following: neither Islam nor foreign lands can easily be reformed by either bureaucrats or the force or the force of arms; our interventions have produced something closer to sharia states than Switzerland’s; Iran is now more powerful in the region rather than less.

There have l0ng been three main foreign-policy tendencies on the American Right: old-style conservatives who agree with Randolph Bourne that war is the health of the state and therefore favor less military intervention abroad; neoconservatives who want to preserve the United States’ global hegemony and engage in armed proselytizing for democracy; and defense-minded conservatives who believe the U.S. should strike forcefully at its enemies whenever it perceives itself, its interests, or its allies to be threatened.

Roughly speaking, these groups can be described as the Jeffersonians, the Wilsonians, and the Jacksonians. Among rank-and-file conservatives, the Jacksonians are by far the largest group. In the postwar era, the Jacksonians have tended to align with the Wilsonians. But there is no reason why that conjunction is inevitable.

With the exception of Ron Paul and some Ron Paul Republicans, the Jeffersonians have no major political figure to speak for them. Yet the popularity of the Wilsonians was always greatly exaggerated. The invasion of Iraq and the mass conservative acceptance of the Bush Doctrine were made possible by al-Qaeda’s act of mass murder on 9/11.

Throughout the 1990s, Wilsonian neoconservatives called for regime change in Iraq, but they did not succeed in rallying the grassroots Right to the cause. The conservative base tuned out the PNAC crowd. Millions of conservatives voted for Pat Buchanan, who opposed even the first war with Iraq, in the 1992 and 1996 Republican presidential primaries—even as neoconservative commentators were writing essays attempting to purge Buchanan from conservative movement.

Grassroots conservatives were repulsed by American bloodshed during our humanitarian intervention in Somalia. They opposed using our armed forces to deliver groceries to Third World countries and restoring a dubious left-wing character to power in Haiti. They objected to the bombing of Serbia and canceled their subscriptions to the Weekly Standard when that magazine sided with the Clinton administration on military action in the Balkans.

The years after 9/11 were a Jacksonian moment hijacked by neoconservatives. While most American conservatives liked the idea that the we could increase others’ freedom by defending our own against despots overseas, very few of them wanted to go to war to build schools in Iraq or promote democracy. They wanted to pay back the people who murdered their countrymen and make sure that such an attack never happened again.

They trusted that George W. Bush was the man for the job and were patient when he talked about lighting a fire in the minds of men. But ordinary conservatives nevertheless agreed with the following sentiment expressed by John Derbyshire: “What matters most is not the fire in the minds of men, which will burn at some level for as long as there are men, but the fire that results when fissionable material undergoes a fast chain reaction.”

You see the problem is that the very same people that stood behind George W. Bush and cheered him, as he charged off to war in Iraq and Afghanistan; are the same one who stand and in unison blame President Obama for any failures for the war in both Countries.  The truth is that President Obama DID inherit BOTH of these wars for President Bush and it is because of utter incompetence of the Pentagon and State Department under President Bush, not to mention the entire intelligence community, is why we are in this mess in the first place!

So, instead of being noble and honest men, and admitting that they actually made mistakes, one being electing a President that was about as Conservative, as I am damned atheist; they would rather navel graze the whole thing and try and deflect the blame onto the Democrats, as much as they possibly can.  The problem is with that little idiotic plan is this; thinking Americans, like this writer are just smarter than that, we know what happened and we know who was responsible for the actions of the President.  I am fully aware of who goaded the President into declaring war with Iraq.  I have no forgotten and neither have the American people.  This is, one of a myriad of reasons, why John McCain lost the election.  Because the American people did not want someone, who would take marching orders from the Neo-Conservatives.

So far, Obama has been showing his independence of the warmongering class in the Republican Party. Thankfully, under Michael Steele the warmongering class have been pushed aside; which is why people like William Kristol want him to resign so badly, that being because Michael Steele will not march to their orders and is expressing his own views, and not those who wish the United States to fight a perpetual war.  I commend Michael Steele for that.

Another thing I think I need to be clear on; as you know, I did post a video, that was a warning to America.  Some would look at that and say, “Are you not talking about of both sides of your mouth?” to that I would say no. That is because that video essentially validates what I have believed all along; that the notion of, “We must fight the terrorists there, so we do not have to fight them here” is idiotic at best.  That is because there are radical Islamic terrorists that are already here now! That video proves as much.  My personal issue with George W. Bush was not with fighting terrorism, which he began in Afghanistan.  He however, was goaded by the warmongering class in the Republican Party to go to war with Iraq, which, for what it is worth, is what this class of people wanted to do during the Clinton years, but was rebuffed repeatedly.  This caused, I feel, a distraction, as those who planned had this strange idea, that the invasion would be a cakewalk.  I believe it would be understood that we all know now that this was a very flawed idea.

Much of what I said above, would be considered, what I like to call, “rearview mirror quarterbacking.”  We all know this now, the problem is, where do he go from here?  The best thing that can happen is Obama follow through with his promises to follow Bush’s pull out timetable in Iraq.  We cannot continue to be the World’s police officer.  If Iraq has an upheaval over there, let them.  We did our part over there; we rooted the major player in the insurgency.  We toppled Saddam.  What happens after we have left is not our concern.  As for Afghanistan, if we can catch or kill Osama Bin Laden, fine do so.  However, if the Afghan Government and the Pakistani Government is that corrupt and does not want to be partner against the war on terror.  I say cut our losses and pull out the troops and leave.  Then send in specialized CIA assassins in there to hunt Osama Bin Laden down and kill him that way.  I just do not see the justification for our Military personnel dying for a Government that is corrupt to its core.  It just does not make any sort of sense to me at all.

Bottom Line:  President Obama should not be blame for any of the failures of any of these wars.  The President who started them should be blamed.  President Obama should continue the turnkey plan given him by Bush, and should implement a better strategy in the Afghan theater.  If the Governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan will not work with the United States on the capture or killing of Osama Bin Laden, then President should use the CIA to kill him.