In some ways, President Bush has similar problems to President Lincoln in 1862-4. Public opinion focused on only a part of that war – fighting in the east, and might have forced a peace despite the Union successes in the west. In retrospect it seems obvious who would win, but at the time it was obviously not so clear. Same today in Iraq?? Afghanistan??

What are our goals in Iraq?

I think a major goal is to have Iraq be a long term ally in the region. And the evidence shows that is likely to occur if we stay on our current path.

So, in 2003, Iraq was an avowed enemy. In 2013 Iraq will, unless we pull an Obama, be a stable military ally of America. We will have trained, and have close working relationships with, the entire military establishment of Iraq—and much of the political and domestic security establishment as well.

It’s likely that we will have turned Iraq from a mortal enemy to a committed ally with deep military, diplomatic, and economic ties.

The expense has been large, in dollar terms, but still relatively cheap as a % of GDP. I think it’s worth it.

I prefer when we can just use cash to buy allies—like with the Saudis. But sometimes cash alone won’t do, so we had to use more direct means with Iraq and Afghanistan.

The situation in Afghanistan is different, because the intensity is much lower, and Afghanistan is so much less of a state, and much less valuable as an ally. We are just trying to keep bad stuff from happening in Afghan. Iraq, on the other hand, has real things to offer as an ally.

Iraq has a wealthier, more educated populace. Iraq has oil. Iraq is strategically located. Afghanistan … eh, not so much.

Everything might still go tits up, but things are looking good right now at the overall strategic level.

Yes sir.

I think Jayson may have a point. Besides the presence of insurgency warfare, I think the cases are very different. The U.S. annexation of the Philippines was a genuine imperial move, and the indigenous groups were generally fighting for independence. I don’t think the present war in Iraq was ever about annexing that country, even through a puppet government, any more than was the case with the liberation of Kuwait.

Of course, Curzon may be referring to American opinion of the Philippine war, something about which he would likely be more knowledgeable than I.

Is it my imagination, or does Rule no 2 directly contradict most of the justifications people give for favoring Fallon’s ouster?