Iraq in 10 Years?

October 19 was an eventful Middle East news day. The trial of Saddam Hussein and his associates began. Reactions of Iraqis to Saddam's trial are well covered by this NYT story. Reuters carried this article about what the Arab League is doing to help in Iraq following the referendum. This BBC article discusses the idea that Iraq has become a training ground for Islamic terrorists. Things are not going well with the Palestinians. Their leader, Mahmoud Abbas had a meeting with President Bush in Washington
And Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for the first time in well over a year. Senators from both parties welcomed her, then chastized her for her previous unavailability. Committee members generally asked good questions, though at times she was thrown Republican "softballs." Democrats were very combative, though generally within bounds. Secretary Rice sounded very much as she did at her confirmation hearings, often resorting to filibusters, patronizing lectures, obfuscation, evasion, or slogans and platitudes. But within it all, I slowly became much more aware of how it is that neocons think. I listened to what was left out, her thought associations, the repetitions, and to where her passion spoke. Gradually I took in what seems to be the overall mindset and goals of this administration, and it is mind-boggling when you realize they are very serious.
Title-linked is her statement, "Rice: U.S. May Still Be in Iraq in 10 Years ." Here is Condoleeza Rice's opening statement. You can also watch the hearing via C-Span video archives (in the list, go to the title : "Secretary of State on Iraq and U.S. Foreign Policy"). Ivo Daalder, at TPMCafe, posts about Rice's appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This blogger wonders whether we are at war with Syria, based on Rice's evasive answers. Committee members reminded the Secretary Rice that the administration is bound by legislation requiring Senate clearance of a move to invade.
Here is what I believe about the Neocon Real Deal. They are establishing permanent bases in Iraq, that will not be turned over to Iraqi defense forces. They do not worry that a whole new crop of Islamist extremists, as they now call them, now have a very viable training ground in Iraq. Their rationalization is that "we are fighting them there, not here." And I took from several things Secretary Rice inferred that unfolding diplomacy will ever be exercised within a military framework. In effect, U.S. nation building efforts are being manifested in Iraq through mostly military means, which is natural since security cannot be maintained in the face of the continued insurgency.
The U.S. will not leave Iraq, if ever, until there is a Western-style democracy flourishing in the entire Middle East. Dr. Rice calls the current state of the Middle East "malignant." Neocons liken their goal to a situation that now exists among the non-warring nations of the European Union.
As things change in the Middle East, neocons alternately take credit for the positive change or deny that the negative changes are bad. Being quite willing to intervene at will, they feel absolutely justified in using U.S. military power to get to their vision of how things should be in the world.
I close with an invitation to read this extended (12/30/02) quote from neocon author, Max Boot, to understand what was so chillingly familiar in Dr. Rice's presentation to the committee:

But it is not really domestic policy that defines neoconservatism. This was a movement founded on foreign policy, and it is still here that neoconservatism carries the greatest meaning, even if its original raison d'être--opposition to communism--has disappeared. Pretty much all conservatives today agree on the need for a strong, vigorous foreign policy. There is no constituency for isolationism on the right, outside the Buchananite fever swamps. The question is how to define our interventionism.
One group of conservatives believes that we should use armed force only to defend our vital national interests, narrowly defined. They believe that we should remove, or at least disarm, Saddam Hussein, but not occupy Iraq for any substantial period afterward. The idea of bringing democracy to the Middle East they denounce as a mad, hubristic dream likely to backfire with tragic consequences. This view, which goes under the somewhat self-congratulatory moniker of "realism," is championed by foreign-policy mandarins like Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and James Baker, III.
Many conservatives think, however, that "realism" presents far too
crabbed a view of American power and responsibility. They suggest that we need to promote our values, for the simple reason that liberal democracies rarely fight one another, sponsor terrorism, or use weapons of mass destruction. If we are to avoid another 9/11, they argue, we need to liberalize the Middle East--a massive undertaking, to be sure, but better than the unspeakable alternative. And if this requires occupying Iraq for an extended period, so be it; we did it with Germany, Japan and Italy, and we can do it again.
The most prominent champions of this view inside the administration are Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. Their agenda is known as "neoconservatism," though a more accurate term might be "hard Wilsonianism." Advocates of this view embrace Woodrow Wilson's championing of American ideals but reject his reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish our objectives. ("Soft Wilsonians," a k a liberals, place their reliance, in Charles Krauthammer's trenchant phrase, on paper, not power.) Like Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, "hard Wilsonians" want to use American might to promote American ideals.
This is, in case you haven't guessed, my own view too. So I guess that makes me a neocon. It's a designation I'm willing--nay, honored--to accept, if it comes with a caveat: Neoconservatism--like other political descriptions, such as "liberal" and "conservative"--has entirely lost its original meaning. It no longer means that you're a Johnny-come-lately to the good fight, and--contrary to Mr. Buchanan's aspersions--neocons are no less conservative than anyone else on the right.
Actually that's an understatement. Neocons are closer to the
mainstream of the Republican Party today than any competing faction. During the 2000 campaign, President Bush sounded very much like a realist, with his suspicions of "nation building" and his warnings about American hubris. Then along came 9/11. The National Security Strategy that he released in September--which calls for "encouraging free and open societies on every continent"--sounds as if it could have come straight from the pages of Commentary magazine, the neocon bible.