There's a dead horse one never gets tired of beating. But neoconism may still live in Bush's delirious mind, so beat on.

So: Didn't the neocon ideologues originate from the left anyway, embitteredly turning to the right and taking the worst of both worlds, far-fetched ideological constructs + vulgar militarism and nationalism?

And, I think the idea was that the dictator was all holding back the Middle East from being a new post-Soviet Eastern Europe. Holding power only by violence and the fear of violence. So shiny neocon knight kills the dragon and all rejoice in democratic mirth and merriment.

Going through the excellent 1974 Thames series 'The World at War', I feel an argument forming in my mind that Japan and Germany were possible to remake in USA's image because they had a cause - their nations - and that cause was utterly defeated. Saddam had no cause, nor did Iraqis identify with his defeat. Any takers?

I don't know about the "liberal hawk" case for the war being "even crazier", or more self-contradictory or whatever, than the neo-con perspective. as someone who was, full disclosure, uncommittedly and naively sympathetic to this view, I am hoping I am remembering correctly when I say that a) at the time the invasion was being contemplated, the Bush administration wasn't yet known in its full venality, and, more importantly b) the philosophical emphasis on the universality of an all-conquering drive for freedom was completely *complementary* to any doubts about the Bush admin's competency. for those believing in the inevitability of the ultimate triumph of democracy, it didn't matter that they didn't vote for or particularly trust the current American president - it was always going to be the ostensibly freedom-loving Iraqis who were going to carry the day, with any American intervention beyond the removal of Saddam rendered inconsequential in the long-term. the "liberal hawks" were guilty of underestimating (or just plain ignorance of) the obstacle to Western-style democracy posed by never-resolved sectarian conflicts, as well as underestimating the degree to which Feithian ideologues would be free to make hugely influential, hugely fucked up decisions about the post-war - *not* in trusting the Bush administration too much, per se. this overriding faith in 'people power', ignorance of the weight of local social history, and lack of suspicion of government are *completely* in character for liberals, and, as more correctly noted, completely OOC for traditional conservatives.

How many 'liberal hawks' were there anyway? And count out the elected politicians please.

Feithian?

And can someone explain how 'liberal' came to mean left-wing.

Klaus,

There appear to have been a number of liberal (i.e. center-left) supporters of the Iraqi effort, online as well as in the Commentariat.

It seems to me the Nuclear Threat bundled up with visions of saving the Iraqis was the selling point.

As to the comment
\ the "liberal hawks" were guilty of underestimating (or just plain ignorance of) the obstacle to Western-style democracy posed by never-resolved sectarian conflicts, as well as underestimating the degree to which Feithian ideologues would be free to make hugely influential, hugely fucked up decisions about the post-war - *not* in trusting the Bush administration too much, per se. this overriding faith in 'people power', ignorance of the weight of local social history, and lack of suspicion of government are *completely* in character for liberals, and, as more correctly noted, completely OOC for traditional conservatives.

A fair estimation this, of course even cynical critics of the war such as myself found the incompetence, the gross and sheer incompetence, beyond expectations.

I think something that has been underexposed is Europe's take on Iraq. Something that often strikes me is how US lefties give Europe every benefit of the doubt, probably since Europe is welfare happy land. We are so intelligent, educated and tolerant, and we all have passports. Have seen something similar in lefty Brits too, but not as much. In Europe, the stance on Iraq was split very evenly down on left-right lines, with the right being in favour and the left against. The exceptions are the Gaullists who, of course, are anti-American, and Labour. Blair's leg-humping is worth a few books, because it really is hard to decipher why an internationalist like Blair would go along with Bush. I put it down to Blair's idealism, and believe he saw the Iraq war as international, the vanguard of A New World Order. In the words of Chris Patten: 'He holds his beliefs very strongly - while he holds them.'

The rest of right-wing Europe went along, but only with moral support. They do not have skin in the game, and so have not suffered at elections. Basically, left and right have aligned themselves for or against USA, principles be damned. Just a team game. The left criticised USA for not taking action in Bosnia, then criticised it when it did take action in Kosova. Go figure.

I find it worrying that the government in places like UK, Spain and Italy chose to go war against the wishes of the vast majority of their own populations. There's something deeply wrong with playing simple politics with war.

Good to have you around again, Loun, we all deserve a good chastisement.

Who's we?

The Lounsbury Party was spot on from the start. Bloody well called it right from the get go. Except the part about pissing away billions and not even getting the fucking black gold out of the ground. I thought that would happen.

By 'we' I mean all who read 'Aqoul. Come for the knowledge, stay for the insults. Or is it the other way around?