uh oh, no more liddle piddies. . .

The Bush administration has given various justifications for its misadventures in Iraq. Until now, all but one of them has proven untrue. The UN Inspection process was moving forward. Hussein was increasingly cooperative with the UN Inspectors (to the point of opening up his palaces for inspection). The UN inspection team found no evidence of WMD's. There was no Nigerian yellowcake. There was no link between Hussein and al Qaeda, or the 9/11 bombings or any known terrorist group. Three years into our occupation of Iraq, there is still no evidence of WMD's.

One by one each of these justifications was exposed, leaving the administration, finally, to argue that the reason for the war was to bring democracy to the Mideast. Oddly, after eliminating all of the other justifications as the straw men, red herrings and outright lies they were, I believe that this last justification was the real one all along (see the Ten Downing Street Memo); however, wars of adventure for the sole purpose of bringing about regime change violate international law (think of it like Star Trek's prime directive - non-interference with the internal affairs of another country).

And that's what makes this so sad:

some outside experts who have recently visited the White House said Bush administration officials were beginning to plan for the possibility that Iraq’s democratically elected government might not survive.

“Senior administration officials have acknowledged to me that they are considering alternatives other than democracy,” said one military affairs expert who received an Iraq briefing at the White House last month and agreed to speak only on condition of anonymity.

“Everybody in the administration is being quite circumspect,” the expert said, “but you can sense their own concern that this is drifting away from democracy.”

Unfortunately, this little tidbit appeared as the final three paragraphs of a longer article examining the statistics on the increasing violence in Iraq. See Bombs Aimed at G.I.'s in Iraq are Increasing, NY Times, August 16, 2006. This item should be front page news. If senior administration officials are concerned that Prime Minister Maliki's government may not survive, than they ought to be in Congress explaining what course we are on and what our contingency plans are.

Shortly before the war, Tom Friedman was speaking, I believe it was before the National Press Club, about the danger of igniting sectarian strife, between religious, tribal and ethnic groups in Iraq. He suggested that if we went to war we would learn whether Saddaam created Iraq, or whether Iraq created Saddaam. It is looking more and more like the latter.

And if the Bush Administration is considering whether to give up on the fledgling democracy who will save it?

And when George W. Bush announces that we are withdrawing our troops - after having killed 35,000 civilians, laying waste to whole cities, creating tens of thousands (or more) refugees, wasting hundreds of billions of US dollars that we didn't have to spend, and killing more than 2,500 of our own troops - not to mention the number of our own troops and of Iraqi civilians who have lost limbs, lives, organs, etc.

Will he still say it was worth it? Is he still going to blame the liberals? Will he, in even some deep tiny little crevice in his mind even once ask whether he is one of the worst mass murderers of the last 50 years.