It actually took the Romans hundreds of years to develop that effective burocracy. In the late republic (2d-1st centuries), it was very much like Halliburton (see E. Badian on Imperialism); it was only with and after Augustus that one can think of a well-regulated and administered empire.

And this guy lost the popular vote and almost certainly would have lost the electoral vote as well without funny business in Florida.

I mean, there is all sorts of stuff going on with this administration that any viable free press would be pounding on day after day--especially after the bizarre standards for defining a Presidency as "under siege" and "scandal plagued" established under Clinton.

My point is, where is the mandate for Bush to remake America and take us back to 1896 in domestic policy while establishing a new Roman Empire in foreign policy? And why isn't the press talking about this all the time?

I mean, starting in the 90's we've entered a very bizarre, very weird period in the history of this country. It would be one thing if Bush II had won FDR or Reagan style landslides, heck even a Bush I size victory. It's just simply unbelievable that in the mainstream press the radical direction this administration is taking this country is virtually never a topic of discussion or debate.

Thank goodness this internet thingie arrived in time to fill the void of the collapse of the SCLM.

Thank goodness this internet thingie arrived in time to fill the void of the collapse of the SCLM.

Ponder the opposite possibility:

Perhaps, in a world where nobody needs to wait until 6 PM for Walter Cronkite or Dan Rather to tell them "the way it is," where one needn't wait to grab the morning paper to find out what happened the evening before, news directors and editors don't see any point in trying to pursue real news.

Perhaps the Internet makes gathering data from around the world so easy that the old news outlets decided to traffic instead in meta-narratives--narratives like "the war on terrorism," electoral horse-races, and other imprecise, easily-manipulated spin.

But maybe not. They're probably just a bunch of lazy hacks.

Mary, I think you have an excellent point in saying that an “untenable situation” has been created in Iraq. I think however, that the US must get out of Iraq. I do not think it is likely however. The US has created a power vacuum in Iraq, and to a lesser extent, in the Middle East. My guess is that there is going to be a very long conflict within Iraq between different groups within the country whether the US is there or not. If we just left, then certainly there would an ongoing (and probably bloody) struggle for power within Iraq.

Given that Iraq has huge oil resources, it also seems likely that other nations in the region might invade a defenseless Iraq for those resources. Or a coalition of them might take portions of the country. It seems clear from past incursions that Turkey, Syria, and Kuwait, might all be up for such an incursion. A destabilized Iraq with no unified defenses would also be ripe for pawn-making by other powers (as has been the longer US foreign policy). In that scenario, one might see the US, Russia, Britain, and perhaps others, covertly supporting and arming their “pick” to rule.

A scenario that I think might work is for the US to divest itself of authority, but support another group coordinating power and rebuilding infrastructure. The UN “might” be able to do this IF the US turned over authority. The US might also be able to stay there IF we worked with the international community to rebuild Iraq. And IF we started to massively hire Iraqi’s to rebuild their own country.

I don’t think that any scenario where the US gives up the reins of power is too likely under the current regime. What seems more likely is a growing US military and corporate presence in Iraq – that might very well include the US use of mercenary forces rather than US troops. I am sure that if instability in the entire region erupts that the regime is not loath to attempt the military conquest of the rest of the region. Such actions would be ultimately suicidal, but I don’t think the neo-cons see it that way. If such a path was taken, it seems possible that the US would attempt to forge a broader coalition of occupation and control with other nations – particularly northern and from East Asia. China comes principally to mind. After all, it has a large military and is rushing along the industrialization/capitalism path, which will certainly dramatically increase its demand for oil.

I don’t think that any action taken by a Bush regime is likely to be trusted in Iraq – or by the rest of the world. When someone is willing to lie, deceive and misdirect for their own gain, it is most unlikely when someone will believe what one is saying or doing. Unfortunately, that loss of credibility likely extends to the US government in general.

I disagree that there is no easy way out of Iraq. It's more a matter of the administration not wanting to take the easy way out.

If you wanted to get out easy, you would go to the U.N. and beg to turn over the aftermath to them. They'd take it in a heartbeat. An international coalition of peacekeepers would be there just long enough to hold elections. In other words, they would move in and out very rapidly.

Whichever Shi'ite had the support of Hakim and Systani (sp?) would become the new Iraqi President. He would then crackdown on the Sunni opposition with arms provided by all sorts of foreign powers, perhaps including us.

The country would not be a functioning democracy after the first election. It would probably look like a combination of Egypt and Iran, with a strongman as "President" who observes some of the forms of democracy (like Egypt) while enforcing an Islamic code (like Iran).

I'm not saying this is the best possible outcome or one that was worth going to war to impose. But if someone wanted to get out of Iraq without unleashing chaos, this is the way to do it.

Mary: Excellent post, as usual.

Not sure I agree that the best option is to stay. Why I’m thinking this right now is that I cannot see any positive endgame if we stay. In the absence of a controlling authority even if only a temporary one, there is no ability to build a governing body that will be accepted by the people. The US will never be accepted in the role of the authority. Any country that sends in troops at this point will be seen as nothing more than US flunkies. The local forces have already sent the message that the UN is not welcome as long as the US is there. The longer we stay the more cohesive and organized the opposition becomes. The stronger they become the more inevitable it becomes that we will have to withdraw, and with our withdrawal the more vulnerable the area becomes for further destabilization by the united forces in Iraq. Sure we might be able to camp out and protect Kuwait but I’m not sure it would be so easy in Saudi Arabia; plus those actions would further inflame anti-US feelings.

Would the UN and other countries come in to temporarily fill a power vacuum if we left? Possibly. Would that buy the Iraqis some time to put some things together? Possibly. Of course, it is just as likely that they would be viewed as US mercenaries, particularly if the US is hunkered down in Kuwait and Qatar.

At this point GWB & Co. are so loathed throughout the world that nobody wants to deal with them. Plus GWB is not trustworthy as shown by his request to the UN for resolution 1441 and dismissal of the work of Hans Blix. The longer GWB remains in power and bullying his way around the world, the harder it will be for us to heal the wounds. But which do we want to inherit: 1) an occupied Iraq with a wide ME opposition coalescing against us or 2) an Iraq in chaos and civil war with the people appealing to the UN for assistance? I fear that even with regime change here, we would continue to be viewed as part of the problem under scenario 1. Western nations have no problem with scenario 2. Even in the Balkans, the west in part stepped in when the conflict risked spilling over into Europe.

The biggest risk for the US in a unilateral withdrawal is the dislocation of oil and the economic consequences. Of course the $100 billion a year that we are spending on Iraq may help cushion any oil shock at home, but I would still expect some severe economic difficulties. That is why GWB will not withdraw and will continue invite UN participation in his excellent adventure. The opposition will get organizationally stronger in the next year, but it’s anyone’s guess if they will become more powerful militarily and I would tend to expect more of them same. As long as GWB can keep it at this level and the economy doesn’t take a nosedive, he will have a good shot at getting elected unless the DEMs can inform enough Americans that everyday we are there we become less and less safe.

Pat m: “My point is, where is the mandate for Bush to remake America and take us back to 1896 in domestic policy while establishing a new Roman Empire in foreign policy?” But surely even a mandate to do bad evil things should not be an excuse to do them.

rowan and I were thinking along similar lines at the same time.

Shermanclay does raise a more optimistic scenario, but it also begins with the US getting out.

Respect is a given--nobody ever demanded respect and got it.

Trust is a given--nobody ever demanded trust and got it.

--ventura county, ca

You left out a major determinant of US presence in Iraq.

Why we got there :: Oil (Sadaam, Sadaam, Sadaam, oh, right)

Why we are still there :: Oil. (create a showcase middle east popular democracy, right)

Why we'll continue to stay there :: Oil. (& if we leave now, our lads will have died for nothing, same justification for staying in Vietnam, oh and to keep the world safe from the commie menace, right.)

We know why the hell we went there, We know how the hell we got there. We know why the hell we stay there. We also know that we are going to catch hell for doing so.

The scenarios presented above, should we leave Iraq now, are all plausible, but which country should we consider above all in our deliberations? Of what use will the US be to anyone if we sacrifice an entire generation in Iraq just so a bunch of irresponsible chickenhawk spoutsuckers don't lose face?

If this doesn't make you angry, then kiss your sons and brothers while you can - they won't be around much longer. Then go look at yourself in the mirror, good and long, so you won't have to ask who to blame.

As Senator Byrd remarked in his speech during the so called deliberations before the War on Iraq, we were not given the complete and truthful picture of why we went to war in the Middle East. Such a complete picture would have required our Senators to critically examine the so called PNAC document which has been adopted by stealth by this administration.This document which owes its
existence to the Chickenhawk Wolfowitz and his
partners in crime from the University of Chicago
essentially postulated that America should become a hegemonic power and be prepared to defeat any opponent who seriously threatened this hegemony.
The cornering of resources like oil which are necessary for this hegemony was a key componenet of this hegemonic exercise. This is why Iraq became a target for these chickenhawks.

The patron saints of these chickenhawks were two demented political scientists named Leo Strauss and Paul Johnson.
Leo Strauss's main contribution was the great insight that the U.S. was weak because it conducted open debates of its policies in advance.
To counter this bad habit, he proposed that only a gifted few should be let in on the rel intenet of any policy and the press and other courtiers must be deployed to spread lies.Lying should be considered an essential tool of the ruling elite.
Hence, the phenomenon of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell,
Condi and,of course, Bush lying their asses off at each turn.

The other crazy patron saint of these chickenhawks was a sorry ass British wannabe imperialist called Paul Johnson, who proposed that the U.S., Britain and like minded Western
nations reestablish colonial rule all over again
in the Middle East, revisiting the Raj again.
Of course, the British would bring enlightenment,cricket and all the rest of civilized living to the benighted souls in arab lands.

The last item on the PNAC agenda was to bring
the U.S. firmly on the side of Israel in the
Israeli-Palestinian war, reversing nearly five decades of U.S. role as an honest broker, mediating the disputes. The PNAC document states that the mediating role played by the U.S. actually emboldened the Palestinians to increase their resistance against Israeli occupation.To counter this, the document calls for the U.S. to adopt a role heavily in favor of the Israeli side and abandon the Palestinians as a viable entity
with whom the Israelis can be asked to negotiate.

While these ideas were put in the document, it was neither brought up in any Presidential debates between Al Gore and Bush nor has it been given extensive coverage by the media.One reason is contained in the document itself which says that the proposed PNAC agenda will not receive support from the American people unless a "cataclysmic event of the magnitude of Pearl Harbor" occurs.

We now know what has happened to all of us during the past two and a half years:9/11,Iraq,Anthrax Scare, Homeland Security, and a dozen other instances to make us feel less and less secure.
Whether these are coincidences or planned cannot be determined unless congress and the supine media undertake critical and sceptical investigations.

Our long nightmare,to paraphrase President Ford,
is just beginning.