Doublethink

It seems to me that one of the biggest problems facing the adoption of useful policies, policies thast will actually serve America's interest, in Iraq is the widely spread (in certain elite circles, at least) case of doublethink.

Over at Political Animal, Kevin Drum identifies this doublethink to some degree, but his conclusions are what you'd expect.

A growing majority of Americans believe we should withdraw from Iraq. Democratic politicians, many of whom supported the war from the beginning, refuse to call for a withdrawal. They think we should stick it out, knowing full well that the supposed aims of the war over there are, at this point in time, impossible to achieve.

Perhaps they stick to it because they really believe in this folly. But I'm convinced they are merely terrified that expressing support for withdrawal will make them look weak.

The situation is so backwards it hurts my head. But Democrats really don't have the wide range of options they had three years ago, when they could have prevented the war from happening in the first place.

Let me start off by saying I never believed in this war. Not only was it completely obvious to anyone possessing judgment that invading Iraq was a bad idea, a waste of resources, and a guaranteed distraction from our struggle against Islamic terrorism, but Bush was absolutely the wrong commander in chief for this or any other war.

Bush is a completely political president. His concern for policy exists insofar as a selective adoption of backward conservative dogma is a concern for policy. He is stubborn not as those with strong beliefs is stubborn (I am unconvinced his beliefs extend beyond his belief in his infallibility and his desire to protect the investor class from the evils of taxes and regulation), but as children are stubborn. He is glib. He is not thoughtful. He lacks the kind of empathy and sense of responsibility that troubled fellow lousy Texas president Johnson's sleep over VietNam War casualties. This was clear from the outset. No such man deserves to be commander in chief.

Insofar as American soldiers are central to the occupation, that American prestige is tied into the war, and that grave consequences of the war will strike America hard, it is our war. But it is Bush's war just as significantly. It is hard to imagine this war without Bush or someone equally foolish.

If anyone should pay for this war it should be Bush. Why the warhawks of my party seem so concerned about providing Bush this cover, I don't understand.