Following up ...

In my theory - which in its conception is anything but average whether my name be Joe or Ryan - I am not advocating or interpreting the administration's actions as those bent on systematically toppling every third world bad actor in the region or the world. I thought I was clear about that, but let me be sure - toppling Iraq, and presuming a functioning quasi-Jeffersonian democracy was set up, the subsequent hope would be that because of that one large geographical injection of freedom into Mesopotamia that it would spread through the mouths and on the backs of Middle Easterners, not US Marines. College students from Iran slipping into Iraq, building governments in exile if you will, requesting political asylum, the same with Syrians, etc. Perhaps a freedom pact is signed with Lebanon, and dare I say trade with Israel and the West. The rest of the region sees a middle class develop, calls for reforms occur in those bordering nations, even protests begin. I understand its a philosophical argument - that Jeffersonian democracy is infectious. -but that was my thrust in terms of "inoculation", not knocking down each domino - JUST THE FIRST ONE.

Now, you can argue, as you did, that Islam is antithetical to democracy and even though its not politically correct to say and bordering on a Savage-esque comment, you certainly have history on your side to prove your case. This was much the same theory bandied about concerning Russians by intellectuals during the Cold War - they want an Iron fist, as if its bread into the DNA. And in Palestine at the first opportunity they had to vote they ushered in one of the most militant terror organizations in the world - Hezbollah (it just occurred to me that if the NSA has key word alerts set up to flag and check sites, they must be every familiar with us - how many times have we used the words Al Qedas, terrorist, Bush etc in just the last few days?). So yes, it is an uphill climb this expectation that democracy will spread on its own inertia, but those 7 million ink stained thumbs was a start.

****

It must just tickle you pink to think (and perhaps its true) that you are far more versed in military affairs then a former Secretary of Defense. Why else would you take every single opportunity to knock his light foot print policy? YES, it was FUBAR, and he had experts like General Zenchecky (sp?) whom pointed out that it was the opposite - you need more forces to hold then to take. Rummy was wrong 0n this, he was wrong on this, he was wrong on this. And it was the only completely unbiased part of that entire documentary, and may I add Jambo although it was interesting, I damn near wore out my garden hose washing off the BS. How would you view a Clinton Era "documentary" produced on FOX and ONLY Republican legislatures and hostile media (using Dana Priest of the Washington Post is like me using Rush Limbaugh) to demonstrate just how inept Willy was? This is not to say there weren't nuggets of enlightenment spread throughout, but man alive it's couched between such nonsensical inferences and flat out mind reading that to be called a "documentary" ... but I digress ... so Titus can we state for the record, the 488,000 troop level, the heavy footprint, was the correct strategy. In other words Rumsfeld demonstrated a real lack of ability to foresee, or flat out listen to experts - what it would take to hold Iraq after the fall of Saddam. And just to add to your question about my theory in a post Saddam Iraq, clearly it was thought that merely pushing over Saddam would constitute pushing over that first domino i.e. leave enough breathing room for Chalabi to orchestrate a democratic installment. This was not the case, clear hold and build was necessary in a region that had been molested by a mad man for 30 years. He, and by extension the neocons, were wrong there too.

From this point forward I will regard any in-depth slamming of the man as trite. Its been done to the hilt so do it if you wish, but its established doxy now, his post war planning was anything but.
****

On the good will be taken for granted, yes, along with a lack of foresight into what a post Saddam Iraq would look like I agree that their inability to communicate to the American public, in grand and inspiring Churchillian ways, was their other greatest flaw. And although it may have taken some time for me (a while back) to come to the conclusion that the administration was caught with their pants down when a democracy didn't spring up out of the sand after Saddam, I have always been hyper critical of this aspect, repeatedly so. Where are the fireside chats? The grand picture being painted? The speeches on this noble endeavour? The rallying of support from the most effective bully pulpit in the world? They seem to think the American citizenry, and the world, would just "get it" that they were attempting something noble. It has been and remains their Achilles heel, no question. You must always wage a PR, or flat out "enlightening propaganda war" to coincide with the real one, one facilitates the other. That's been true from Alexander' speeches to his troops up through FDR - you must inspire your people to these noble ends, you must lead.

****

Now, if I were to postulate as to how I would have done things differently...

Now right after you wrote that you descended into a rant about Bush's failure to lead the war effort at home, and I whole heartily agree - I wrote as much just above. But that's not what I asked in my Macro Iraq post. I asked in a post 9/11 world what would have been your grand strategy to confront the epidemic of Radical Islam, its roughly 10 million followers, and the fact that in an open society we can't possible guard every potential target in order to prevent another 9/11. We would have to, in some way, take the fight to them in terms of a long term strategy of denying them future recruits via future generations.

Am I to gather that you too would have went into Iraq, but better planned - both on the inspiring our people on home front level and post Saddam occupation? Your answer seemed a bit scattered to me. So lets be clear - are you saying that you would have went in too as part of a post 9/11 long term strategy to combating radical Islam, with the above mentioned modifications (and they're huge, no doubt) or did you just avoid the question of what a Titus administration would have done all together? I await your answer with baited breathe .....