Until later, then.

Sorry, I just got off an upsetting phone call and I have a headache. Perhaps another day.

You must have read something different than I, or perhaps the first article put you in such a jaundiced mood that you couldn’t see much difference.

I know that you’re tired of the anti-Bush arguments, so I see why the line you quoted would set you off.

Still, it’s not a “mutual admiration society.” They’re just being courteous, as you want us to be here on this blog. There are actually some big differences among these writers.

Marks argues for a very slow, incremental withdrawal from Iraq.

The implication of Frazer is that a slow withdrawal will not address what he thinks is a key problem–that the presence of US troops (military bases) in the Middle East contributes to anti-US sentiments and ergo insurgency.

Kaiser doesn’t think we have the resources, including the military capability, to oversee a long, drawn out withdrawal.

Krohn agrees with Marks but has his own bit to throw in–that Nixon-era officials (Cheney and Rumsfeld) are largely responsible for Iraq.

McNeil doesn’t think Marks gives near enough explanation for how the US would do this long, extended withdrawal.

Finally, Schwab compares Bush to Truman, suggesting that like Truman, people will one day recognize the good in Bush’s actions.

In short, six different perspectives, and I posted this because too often folks lump all academics together, saying they’re all left wing wackos and unthinking Bush-haters.

And to finish–historians of foreign relations can’t avoid military history. Another way to think about it is that they may do military history, but in a broader, fuller context.

Why does she have to bring Israel and the Palestinians into it? They haven’t gotten along since Abraham had his second son and they never will.

I’m sick of all the arguing about what we should have done as we can’t unshould have done anything. It’s done and what the future holds appears to be in the hands of laymen in Congress. I have no say over it as I am not in the majority.

Since our present
dilemma arose in part from reliance on Miss Rosy Scenario, plus
extraordinary ineptitude in high places,

it kind of turns me off to anything else he or she has to say later on down the line as it shows a prejudice there.

If she’s an historian and not a military historian her thoughts are no more important than anyone else’s unless one just wants someone to back up an opinion already held by one.

It automatically alerted my antennae and I wasn’t interested in much else she had to say. She quotes her favorite liberals in the political world to back up her claim and I do agree if we leave immediately we will have WWIII.

She should try to convince some in power that’s what could happen instead of writing a paper on it.

As to her solution for leaving, it’s as good as anyone else’s as far as it goes, but what top secret intelligence does she have that makes her so sure she’s right?

See the problem I have with it?