And more importantly, can Will truly see the overall war as not progressing favorably? I only really want to address Will's conclusion on this aspect:
Today, with all three components of the "axis of evil" -- Iraq, Iran and North Korea -- more dangerous than they were when that phrase was coined in 2002, the country would welcome, and Iraq's political class needs to hear, as a glimpse into the abyss, presidential words as realistic as those Britain heard on June 4, 1940.
This is unreal. We're into Cindy Sheehanland, here.
We've pulled Iraq out of the enemy column and though we must fight now to keep it friendly, the progress we make every day means that in a relatively short time we will be able to first pull back our troops and then even draw down our troops, and have an ally fighting our common enemies with us. Iraq will be an asset in the hands of allies rather than an enemy that threatens to break out and become a major threat to us, our allies, and the Middle East as would have been under Saddam.
If we pull out now, Iraq's government could probably win through a bloodbath as long as we can keep foreign powers from intervening on their favorite side's behalf. We might not like the process but Iraq would still be out of the enemy column and would fight our enemies out of sheer survival instincts. We'd lack an example of democracy for broader soft power purposes, but we'd have a narrow win still.
North Korea is no more a nuclear threat now than in 2002. And it is in fact weaker today. At least we have mobilized allies to confront North Korea. We have navies around the world looking for their shipments of nukes. We have pulled our troops off of the DMZ to end their hostage role, and we've solidified our alliance with Japan and boosted missile defense at sea to guard against the North Koreans. And every year the North Korean military gets weaker relative to us and the regime support internally erodes. So we have not reversed the gains Pyongyang made in the 1990s? Just how high a price is Will prepared to pay? North Korea is a containable threat, I've long believed, as long as we squeeze them. They will collapse in time if we can isolate them. the Soviet Union of 1970 was stronger than the USSR of 1950 or 1960, but by 1990, the Soviet Union had lost its Eastern European empire and was on the verge of disappearing.
As for Iran, though they get closer to nukes they do not appear to be there yet. And the Euros had their chance to apply soft power to solve the issue. In the meantime, we've rebuilt our stocks of precision weapons and have had years to cultivate contacts inside Iran (please tell me our CIA isn't so inept that it can't do this). Is Iran worse now than in 2002? Strictly speaking, yes. But the failure has been in the soft power path. And this failure is not beyond retrieving with sterner measures. Remember, we are trying to stop Iran from going nuclear--it does not matter if we stop them five days before they go nuclear or five years. Iran does not get points for getting close. So hold off on the final judgment here.
Retreat too often in the face of committed and ruthless enemies as we did in the 1990s, and you will hear echoes of a different Churchillian speech where we will vow to fight our enemies on our beaches, in our hills, in our airports, and in our malls.
Dude, loosen the bow tie. It's clearly a little tight.
UPDATE: Ok, that last line was out of bounds. I actually respect Will although I've never been a particular fan. I only correct typos or grammar if I reread something and find it is too unclear (like the pronouns don't clearly indicate what they are referring to). By keeping even dumb or wrong things in place, I hope I encourage self-moderation--except when something really needs a good rant, of course.
