[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I see, so to nurture a fledgling democracy we should have overruled an Iraqi government that refused a US troop presence without immunity for a generation long occupation.

The fledgling democracy was quickly becoming undemocratic. And "mega trends," as you put it, were going to keep it heading in that direction. Our presence there is the only realistic thing that could prevent that. So, if you're concerned about maintaining a democracy, especially in its "fledgling" condition, leaving Iraq would not be the way to save it.

On the other hand, if it doesn't concern you whether the democracy survived or not, that is a different story. And I don't have a problem with that. But if that's the case, then don't pretend that you're worried that "overruling" the corrupt Iraqi government would damage the fledgling democratic process.

I'm sure that would have gone over well. There's nothing as soothing as a foreign troop presence to quell centuries old political and sectarian strife.

Actually, whether its "soothing" or not, we have successfully imposed protracted US troop presence to establish democratic processes before, and are still maintaining some of those presences. It actually has worked.

Like I said, the president can influence but not totally control.

Are you referring to the mega trends that he can influence but they have to play out on their own? How would it be playing it out "on their own" if they were influenced. I suppose exiting from a mega trend is a way of influencing it. Strange stuff, these mega trends. But they do come in handy in explaining how something isn't your fault. All Presidents should point to the looming mega trends when they are accused of bad decisions.