Geo-political reality check...

While that was all well and good, and is an acceptable defense of an over-all strategy for the re-aligning of the region's nation-states... it is as far from the reasons given to the American people and the world as you are likely to find.

Realizing that you have no more insight into the minds of the Administration than the next "Joe-on-the-street", let's continue to use your theory and follow it through to the conclusions I see it leading to, okay? Then I will address your final question.

If systematically defeating and rebuilding each and every tyrannical, Third-world regime that advocates or supports anti-democratic or anti-American views is to be the foundation of all Republican foreign policy (and no one could hope that the Democrats would continue GOP policy in any way, shape or form... not even Wolfowitz), then they are way behind schedule. It's been more than 7 years, and we've only managed to topple two, and neither of those are "rebuilt" yet. We also picked the two nations most unlikely to put up any real and measurable defense or resistance. Afghanistan is a nation that has determinedly tried to keep itself so out of even the 20th century (let alone the 21st) that it is the last place on earth to actually suffer an outbreak of the "Black Death"... and that as recently as 85 years ago. Iraq was a nation so utterly defeat in '91 that it hadn't even removed all the burned out tanks littering its highways after 12 years, and what better sign of the weakness of the regime is there to the "people" than driving past Saddam's vaunted Republican Guard equipment cluttering up the landscape?

I don't want to sound sarcastic... that isn't my intention. I do want to show a couple of points, though: the goal stated in your last post, while noble in sentiment, is completely outside of the scope of US executive authority AND is impractical at best, and impossible at worst.

We have discussed the possibility that the drive to remove regimes like the Taliban and Saddam might have the added benefit of allowing the region to experience democracy on a functional, "traditional" Islamic level that they have never seen before. The examples of secular Islamic democracies is rather short anyway, but the "Fertile Crescent" has never seen one... ever. I'm sure the chance to institute the first was a big "carrot" for the Administration to follow.

If this was a primary motivator in the Administration's policy-making machines, then I'd say the lack of planning and foresight DOES border on criminal. History has shown us time and time again that you cannot secure ground taken without "ground troops"... and Rumsfeld's "smaller, lighter, faster" policy didn't allow for that. How much strategic know-how does it take to know that defeating a regime like Saddam's or the Taliban is the EASY part of the equation? Pacifying and holding the ground is the tough, LONG part of the job... and no planning or consideration had been made for that, it seems to me.

These are TWO examples of nations and peoples that have been controlled by tyrannical, despotic regimes for centuries (literally, centuries!), and the concept of representative government surely must be as alien to these people as "tyranny" is to 99.99% of America... yet Rumsfled is QUOTED as having repeatedly asked when the military was going to "wrap this up?" in Iraq? Our Armed Forces are very good at many things... but "nation building" is NOT one of them. It is not something a military is designed for... ever. So who or what was intended to "build" these democracies we wanted in place of Saddam and the Taliban?

One of the more telling points of the Frontline piece Bush's War was the suggestion that Rumsfeld was working on a withdrawal timetable from the very beginning of the war. He never intended the troops to be there much longer than it took to remove Saddam from power... and he seemed to think that the Iraqi people would simply stand up and follow the Administration's instructions as to how to construct a functional democracy in Iraq. It is simple fact that no contingency for an insurgency was ever in place, and no plans were implemented on a strategic level (until Gates took over) to find a contingency that did work.

Many people have used the American success stories of Germany and Japan post-1945 to show the West's ability to build nations based on functional, representative democracy... and these are fine examples. I am one of these people, in fact. The missing ingredient here, though, is that the US and her fiscally-functional allies (which were few and far between) spent trillions of dollars over the course of 10 to 15 years to rebuild the Japanese islands and central Europe, while the military had a very limited role in peace-keeping and security.

Is Bush and Co. willing, or even able, to do the same now in Iraq and Afghanistan? The first administration certainly wasn't, and little has improved in the way of the second... and now we are looking at the next President coming into the White House. If it is a Republican, then we can at least count on some form of reluctant "nation-building" effort... but if it is a Democrat, we can only rest assured that the withdrawal of US troops AND support for the new governments will begin within 90 days of the inauguration (BOTH candidates have promised as much).

The failings of this Administration go far beyond a lack of planning on a strategic level... they compromised the "good will" and support of the American people, and thus their own ability to complete the grand "plans" you so clearly laid out in your last post. The kind of effort you suggested was a possible reason behind their actions REQUIRES that they focus as much energy and resources on the "home front" as they do on the "battlefront"... and this wasn't even close to the case.

They "assumed" the support and good-will of the American people based on post-9/11 enthusiasm for security and defense, and squandered their most valuable asset in the upcoming war... the American public effort. I have no doubt that, should the need arise, the American people are still able to produce another "Greatest Generation"... the four of us were witness to that when the bulk of our "aid and assistance" was from the public, rather than the government, after Katrina hit the Coast. You don't get that kind of public support, however, by using questionable intelligence and stock photos to make your case for war in Iraq. Even now, who would argue that the invasion of Afghanistan was justified and right? Only the slimmest margin of our fringe right... but the numbers are nearing a majority if the same question were asked of Iraq. That is the failing of the Administration, in light of your "Grand Strategy" theory, in my opinion. One of them, anyway... hehe.

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

I'm not sure I am willing to defend a "pre-emptive" position. I feel the need to stress that, in my opinion, the use of US Military Forces in foreign policy demands specific and measurable reasoning and justification, both to ensure accountability and functionality of command. To make the case that a foreign power or state "might" have done something borders on untenable and flies in the face of justifiable accountability... as we can all see from the very vocal opponents to the War in Iraq.

However, let's assume that I DO feel the action justified and "okay'd" the action. To ignore the importance of "home front support" is as idiotic as ignoring the capabilities of the enemy in the other trench (or tank, or plane... whatever). I am more than confident, I am CONVINCED that much of the support for the use of the atomic bomb in '45 was because the people at HOME were as tired of the fighting and sacrifice as the soldiers on the field. I'm not speaking of being tired of the "fighting" as wanting to keep their boys safe... they want a return to "normal" life. That support, and by extension, that "weariness" comes from MUTUAL sacrifice and support for the effort.

No real or measurable sacrifice has been asked of the American people by the Bush Administration. In fact, they have gone out of their way to make sure no impact from the fighting is felt in the economy or at home (at least within their power to control... they can't stop the media footage). Blanket promises and empty answers to tough questions was the meal of the day for the first 4 years of the war (thank you, Rummy). That is a bad way to build, or even maintain support for a "long, tough fight" in Iraq, isn't it?

I fail to see how an administration like Bush's could have missed the simple fact that you can't have your cake, and eat it too. You cannot fight a protracted war in the Middle East (on two fronts) AND keep the economy at home functioning like its the summer of 1959... all peaches and cream. Fully 1/4 of all our Armed Services have now seen over-seas, combat deployments (many have seen more than one!), each lasting from 7 to 18 months. That is more than 256,000 American households that have experienced the fear and anxiety of deployment separation for a year or more. To pay off the bill we have already wracked up (and the effort is no where near done), each American household would have to pay an additional $1300 a year for 5 years in taxes. Every serviceman or woman that returns from deployment is 70% more likely to need additional health services at sometime in the future than those who are not deployed... that means additional costs and resources going towards health care in a nation where it is increasingly difficult to get the support coverage people need. These sacrifices seem awfully one-sided to me. Where is the incentive to serve, if all you do is take on risk for no measurable benefit?

Does anyone think that the efforts made from 1942 to 1945 would have been as successful if we were spending as much money on "economic stimulus" as we were on supplying and equipping two entire infantry divisions for a year? Rant and rave about the good and bade features of New Deal politics all you want, but let's be frank... the New Deal ended in Jan of 1942, and didn't start up again until 1946, at a greatly reduced size and scope from its 1941 version. Wage caps, rationing, price control, resource drives, war bonds... the nation was dedicated, top to bottom, to win the effort. If that kind of dedication can't be found today, then the effort should never even be attempted. Anything short (using Ryan's strategy outline) is simply doomed to failure from the word GO.