“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Friday, January 05, 2007

Bush stands alone.

President Bush has yet to present his new strategy on Iraq and not surprisingly the Democratic Congressional leaders are signaling that they will fight any plan that calls for deploying more US troops.

The President made a decision to attack Iraq with a stated goal of eliminating weapons of mass destruction and remove the Saddam regime. He accomplished that goal. He continues with dogged determination to risk American assets and lives to create an Iraqi Democracy. There is no evidence that the Iraqis themselves have any more interests beyond achieving a reasonable degree of security. Security can be achieved and the US has a responsibility to assist in that goal.

Most experts on the Middle East advised against the Iraq venture. The President's father through Jim Baker tried to get him to moderate his Iraq democracy ambition. Some of the Nation's top brass has as well. The President believes in some alchemy that will turn lead into gold. If the Iraqis some day decide they want to become a democracy that will be well and good. In the meantime President Bush is going to be given a reminder about democracy. Elections mean something and losing them has consequences.

The Democrats have signaled they are available and willing to exercise their newly achieved authority. That should be a sobering experience for the President. That is the way it works. Standing alone can lead to greatness or calamity. It is an all or nothing risk.


  1. I think you overestimate the amount of people who opposed it from the beginning from a realist or conservative perspective. This is especially true insofar as criticism that gained ground in the press and 'debate' were concerned. Scott Ritter got more airtime than James Baker and Pat Buchanan combined.

    The country would have been better of had the debate taken on such characteristics, but it wasn't.

  2. ...On the other hand, the doctrinaire realists are also pretty useless in the wider war.

  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  4. Cutler, your point is well taken. I would have been more accurate in stating most experts "from" the Middle East than"on"......

    I have to be careful with you guys.

  5. Stay the Course on steroids.

    A round on me.
    Here is to hope!

  6. trish,

    re: "The Good Admiral"

    Are you sincere?

    Have you seen Oak Leaf's take?

  7. Next up on Hewitt:
    Hugh replays McCain's BS re:
    Border Security
    That he spewed on Bennet's show last nite.
    He's polished his BS since last run, but it's still BS.
    ...just remember:
    He and Ted Kennedy agree on what's best for this country that he and Ted and Bush are giving away as fast as possible.

  8. 'Rat,
    bout time for you to start posting whatever dirt you have on Big John.

  9. whit,

    Have you seen Roggio's piece today about the proliferation of the Taliban and a'Q in western Pakistan?
    Talibanistan Expands further into the NWFP

  10. Maybe Trish thinks the Chicom's will help since they are "on board" in Fallon's New (Age) Navy?