I think a lot of us... stood by this administration through thick and thin when the paleocons turned on them, when the liberal hawks turned on them, when the neocons are starting to bail. But my God, if you're going to go into the Middle East, and put 130,000 Americans in harm's way, fighting for democracy, and then you turn around and you appease those two governments who are killing people, I don't think a lot of us are going to stand for that.I want to know who he means by "a lot of us." Himself, Mark Steyn, Hitch, maybe Hugh Hewitt...and who else?
In the same interview, VDH says we may be in an Archduke Ferdinand moment. RTWT. Here's his column on the topic, as eloquent as it is depressing.
If we withdraw before the elected government stabilizes, the consequences won't just be the loss of the perceptions of power, but perhaps the loss of real power. What follows won't be the impression that we are weak, but the fact that we are--as we convince ourselves we cannot win against such horrific enemies, and so should never again try.It's frustrating (actually, frustating doesn't touch it) to see these things happening and be able to do nothing about them.
Read Hitch's column too (curtsy ninme). Shall we all get together and blame Baker for Iraq being a problem in the first place?
Baker was quoted as saying, with great self-satisfaction, that nobody ever asks him any more about the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power in 1991. It's interesting to know that he still feels himself invested in that grand bargain of realpolitik, which, contrary to what he may think, has not by any means been forgotten. It's also interesting in shedding light on the sort of conversations he has been having in Baghdad. For millions of Iraqis, the betrayal of their uprising against Saddam in 1991 is something that they can never forget. They tend to bring it up, too, and to fear a repetition of it.You bring the wine.
