A splash of cold water to the face.

That Uncle Jimbo and the other rah, rah, war without end-amen, cheerleaders need to hear. Except they would not listen to it. Or worse yet,  simply accuse the writer of disloyalty to the nation. Because some people seem to love Arabs-more than they care about Americans:

America’s responsibility for the current stability and future prospects of Iraq — a poor, tyrannized nation that our policies have plunged into bloody chaos — can’t be waved away by pointing out that we could be spending those billions on ourselves instead. If Obama wants to claim the moral as well as the political high ground, he can’t just make the case that Americans will be better off if the United States withdraws from Iraq; he needs to mount a persuasive argument that Iraqis will be better off as well.

As Andrew Sullivan points out-“But will they be any better behaved if we stay?” 1300 years of Arab history, and five years of “liberated” Iraqi history suggest other wise:

Ross has drunk too deeply from the well of imperialism. His argument is simply a rehash of the oldest defense of imperial occupation known to mankind: protecting the wild, savage, occupied people from themselves. It was the excuse of Britain in India, of the Boers in South Africa, of the French in Algeria. That he has dressed it up in Colin Powell’s “you break it you own it” formulation does not change a thing.

That’s not to say I don’t understand his point. I do, and it has some feel-good, noble appeal. But let’s get to the point.

The “Iraqi people” have been at each other’s throats at least since Britain cobbled together the territory nearly 100 years ago. To think that we can outlast these ancient hatreds with our military presence is folly. And it is criminally unfair to American servicemen and women who are forced to endure tour after tour after tour so that people like Ross don’t feel bad about Iraqi self-destruction. It is unfair to their parents, their spouses, and their children. Throw continuing fiscal crisis, lack of military readiness for other threats, and endlessly eroding American soft power on the scale, and the balance tips sharply towards GTFO – harm to Iraqis notwithstanding, cold as that may seem.

If Iraqis are intent on killing one another, there is little America can – or necessarily should – do about it. The first step toward getting beyond this mess is to get out of it.

In my mind I sort of remember freshman chemistry. A catalyst only works at the begining to crearte a reaction. Once the chemical composition of the mixture is changed, the catalyst no longer has effect-no matter how much of it you continue to add to the compound.

Count me in the America lovers crowd. Because until Arabia renounces Islam-it is not going anywhere good. And foreign policy has to be about narrow self interest. Harsh? Yep-but it is the way of the world.

And before anyone throws the, “A peaceful democratic Iraq-allied with the US- will serve the US interest in the region by providing stability in the middle east”. I have two responses: 1) I don’t disagree with you per se-but where we part company is on the idea that current government in Iraq can accomplish that; and 2) No Arab nation will make an effort until they have a functional economy that is not warped by the cheap labor oil money buys. Oh and 3) Iraq is not the focal  point of the region-it is Palestine and Iran. It’s been that way for two millenium.