>
>>They can't make the choices based on the wishes of people who don't understand the situation. This was very true in the Cold War and it is equally true now. The threat of Islamo-fascism is very very real. It is not based on a misunderstanding. In fact, if we understood them better and they understood us better the divide would only be greater and the struggle would intensify. It would certainly cause our side to be more aggressive.
>
>Since when did the US come to understand this threat? Because in the previous decade it was helping the same mujahedeen all over the place - my old place, I mean. And it still points a finger at Russia for dealing with them in Chechnya.

A question of greater risk. This would be like saying in 1943 we didn't understand one day Stalin would be a problem. But in 1980 we didn't know the Cold War would be all over except for the blackmarketing of the Soviet arsenal in ten years. And at that time it was a pretty safe bet that Islamic ire was going to focus on USSR for a while - they were, after all, oppressing a lot more Muslims within their own border and all we were doing was propping a lot of corrupt sheiks in places where there wasn't exactly a viable alternative anyway. (Saudi Arabia without the house of Saud would still be some kind of horror show out of the middle ages. )


>
>>I think the Iraq war - or at least the aftermath - was a blunder. But not because we failed to win over Saddam with good will and folk songs instead of deposing him. It was a blunder because it did not accomplish what we needed and drew resources from Afghanistan and became, as you rightly point out, a public relations nightmare. It was a blunder because it did not consider that any culture could be so nihilistic. Postwar policy did not reflect an understanding of Iraq - it was based on wishes.
>
>All true except - what was it that was needed to accomplish? Saddam was a toothless tiger. The country was in apathy, just like any country gets after a decade of sanctions. Going there in the first place was the first catastrophic decision (which was made in September 2001, IIRC), everything else followed.

The problem was we didn't do the first Gulf War as what it should have been - a war for oil. It would have been a very good time to make a deal with the Kuwaitis - those who liberate you get oil at $15 a barrel forever ( and remember what happened to Hamlin when they didn't pay the Piper ) <g>


>
>>I also regret the effect it had on our relations with Turkey, but that is more a product of Turkey's current internal political situation. There is also a huge amount of Wahabbi money going into Turkey to influence public opinion.
>
>But then The Wahabis and guess who have their hands in each others' pockets. If there was a country in the Middle East that would need a regime change, and where the regime change would mean something to the neighbors, that's Saudi Arabia.

You will get no argument from me about Saudi Arabia not being our friend. I was rather hoping the purpose of the bases in Iraq was to offer us options.

>
>>The role the US plays in Western Civilization today is unique. I sometimes wish it weren't. I wish we were perfect, I wish we did it better - and I wish we had more help. I am not pleased with our present leadership or their policies. But I don't see any leadership coming from anywhere else.
>
>This belief in the idea of leadership is something we thought we (in ex-Yu) were cured of, but unfortunately we weren't. It has cost us dearly, and we still aren't sane. I see that back home almost every party still has its original founder at the helm, except maybe two (and one of them was assassinated).

>
>I'd rather see people knowing how to play politics as much as they know how to play grocery, but for that they first need to realize that politics is playing them. For that, they first need to wish for it, which they don't. So you can fool most of the people most of the time, which is more than enough.
>
>And, as for leadership coming from somewhere else - there were plenty of initiatives coming from elsewhere, and what's on the record there? How did the US respond?

I hope you don't mean the United Nations? Do you think we need another Kellog-Briand pact? Perhaps some Security Council resolution forbidding people from doing bad things?

I have not seen any serious initiatives on the part of any European power to deal with the war of civilizations that is upon us. The European politicians ( at least the previous administrations ) especially in Germany and France thought perhaps they could buy off the ire of people who want them = and their culture - dead. ( in fairness, there are elements of their intelligence apparati that take their responsibilities more seriously. )

I will certainly grant you that our disfunctional relationship with those who have never accomplished anything as a culture other than to have lived someplace when somebody else who had invented things that had a use for it discovered oil under their sand is troubling.