Does anyone out there really believe that a policy of being quick to attack and slow to withdraw from intractable situations actually makes strategic / military sense?
The neocons are envisioning entirely new domino theories, but they're the same folks that set up the dominos in the first place really. They used and played off longstanding Iraqi anonymities for temporary benefits, so if they leave and people do die, they've kind of brought it upon themselves. These are the ideological ancestors to the same Republican hawks who helped bring Pol Pot to power in Cambodia, and helped cause the second largest genocide of the 20th Century.
Particularly ironic is this statement:
"We have seen how subsequent generations looked at the world and the exercise of American power through Vietnam-colored lenses. I would be surprised if future generations didn't begin to see things, distortedly, through an Iraq-colored prism."
- Thomas Donnelly, fellow, American Enterprise Institute
So, here you have an individual...
- whose organization is on record for supporting a preemptive war against Iraq back in 1998.
- who personally wrote of the need for the military to be geared towards "long-term, independent constabulary operations"
- who cited Iraq as being an "immediate justification" for establishing a "substantial American force presence in the Gulf" that "transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and provides "forward-based forces in the region" to counter the threat of Iran.
- who described the invasion of Iraq as a victory of the "heavy-metal hard power of the United States" over "international trade regimes, law, and organizations such as the United Nations" and the "start of a truly new world order ... an enduring Pax Americana", requiring international institutions that reflect these "new realities".
... and now he's concerned that *WE* might begin to see things distortedly, through an Iraq-colored prism?