Here's another one to drive the quagmiristas crazy. Allen Dulles' letter from occupied Germany. As Glenn says, it sounds pretty familiar.

[Afternoon update]

Oh, and by the way, per the comments section, add my name to this list.

Hmmm...what *is* driving us 'crazy', is the absurd idea that events from a totally unrelated and entirely different conflict half a century ago in a different part of the globe somehow 'proves' the Iraq situation is all fine and well. Yeah...one could say that about Vietnam as well, and some "quagmiristas" definitely draw too many Vietnam War parallels. But the pro-war seems to have an even bigger obsession with the simplistic "Saddam=Hitler" and "2003=1933/1938" idea.

Really, if you want to learn from history, examine other recent conflicts in the Middle East instead. E.g. avoiding the American & French mistakes made in Beirut during the early 1980s would be a great start.

MARCU$

Marcus, the point is not to prove that things are "all fine and well." It's to point out that the story is much more complex (and not necessarily as bad) as some in the press would like to make it seem. As the Foreign Affairs piece points out, one certain parallel is that, several months after the end of major combat operations, the fate of both nations still hung in the balance. Yes, we're not guaranteed success by any means, but viewing everything through the lens of Vietnam (or Beirut) will lead to false conclusions as well.

Most Americans understand that the stakes are indeed high (as does the Administration). As David Brooks points out in the NYT today, much of the Democrat Party doesn't get it, which is why they'll almost certainly lose next year, and probably lose big.

Rand,

If the US demonstrates it is prepared to put as much effort into the reconstruction of Iraq as was put into Germany in 1945, I'm relatively happy.

From the start that has not been the case. There does not seem to be a desire, nor an ability to have forces there for decades, nor to fund the reconstruction - i.e. the Senate opting for loans rather than just paying what's needed.

The re-appearance of the Taliban in Afganistan, 2 years after the war was "won" is just another example of not doing the job.

It wasn't "from the start" in Germany, either. Again, go read a little history. The pre-war planning wasn't that great, they floundered around for months, and it was almost two years before the Marshall Plan was even developed, let alone implemented. They were improvising, figuring out what worked and what didn't, and things steadily improved over time, just as is happening in Iraq now.

Yes, the Democrats, particularly in the Senate are being incredibly stupid about this, even more so than the Republicans were after WW II, but they don't control the government (and for good reason, apparently, as they'll find out next year).

> Marcus, the point is not to prove that things
> are "all fine and well."

Like it or not, that is the implication of your own "reader's favorites", Rand. If somebody points out bad news are coming from Iraq, you simply ridicule these critics by posting a parody derived from WW II Germany. As THE ECONOMIST's Robert Lane Greene recently explained, Iraq may actually be significantly more difficult since pre-war Nazi Germany was, in principle, a modern capitalist economy whereas Iraq has been raped for three decades by Arab socialists and other extremists. As for the hoped-for "democratic domino effect", doesn't it make more sense to assume that the bad economic & political habits of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Pakistan & Iran will find their way into Iraq rather than the other way around? In contrast, the post-communist situation in Eastern Europe has been bad -- but at least these nations benefit from the close proximity of wealthy Western markets. Sure, Iraq has oil, but this has hardly proved a blessing to other nations (e.g. Venezuela & Saudi Arabia).

> It's to point out that the story is much more
> complex (and not necessarily as bad) as some in
> the press would like to make it seem.

I read WaPo too, and I don't see this implication. Rather, it seems their correspondents frequently visit the places the Administration doesn't want to talk about and give their account of what's going on. Most of the time, they focus only on the narrow topic at hand and do not try to extrapolate their sobering conclusions to the entire country.

> As the Foreign Affairs piece points out, one
> certain parallel is that, several months after
> the end of major combat operations, the fate of
> both nations still hung in the balance.

Well, that's quite an insight! I have seen countless triumphalist "we are winning!" headlines in THE WEEKLY STANDARD, NATIONAL REVIEW and other neocon publications & blogs until now. If these guys (and you, Rand) are starting to figure out the choice isn't necessarily black & white (=so-called Clintonian "appeasement" vs. an uncompromising all-out war against Islam regardless of what it does to America's reputation abroad), maybe there is some hope after all.

> much of the Democrat Party doesn't get it,
> which is why they'll almost certainly lose next
> year, and probably lose big.

Au contraire, the Dems correctly recognize that just because you have the world's biggest hammer doesn't mean every terrorism-related problem is a nail. Islamic terrorism is an international problem that does not recognise national borders, and it will only be solved by a similar international effort.

MARCU$