No kidding; it’s not like anyone called him a socialist, a terrorist or not an American citizen or anything.

The nerve.

That’s fine. It’s the afternoon now.

?-who said anything about doing nothing?

And I don’t believe we really need to appeal to the sensitivities of, what, 17 countries?

No, but it would be a particularly dumb move to piss off 17 countries simltaneously, and egregiously, when there’s no real upside for us.

Obama needs to develop his own relationship with the Israelis and needs to let them know too that things have changed in Washington. We can treat the Israelis like adults; we don’t need to send in their little buddy. Anyhow, from the Israelis I talk to I get the sense that the _personal_ appeal of GWB is not as great as Levey imagines.

Wilbur, I don’t think even Obama believes that doing nothing is a strategy. And I don’t believe we really need to appeal to the sensitivities of, what, 17 countries?

You know there are only about 6 or 8 major players , and Egypt and Israel are no real problem. Saudi Arabia is a mixed blessing, and Iran is parallel on the seesaw , ready to tip either way .

So Palestine is a problem, and Syria and Lebanon.

So really, it’s a non-starter and a no-brainer. Ain’t gonna happen. Give it up.

Why should I have to do your dirty work (though the $25 mil IS a tempting reason)? You guys had your chance, and you blew it.

The “stability” of Iraq is based on the whim of a man who might have been insane, as his sons were assuredly will.

First of all, what proof do you have of that. Secondly, if the Cold War has taught us anything, is that whenever someone assumes their opponent is insane, they tend to act irrationally.

Also, you often wait hours to post these things — and no one is discussing my comment

Frank, I know this is going to break your heart, but my life doesn’t revolve around you. Deal with it.

Yes, Zython, it is called status quo ante. It is based on the premise that not all change is for the better. Actually, it is a point you are about to make with regard to Iraq.

[I am sorry I don't respond to your last minute attempts to score points off my comments, but I have noticed that very often, when I do, you start making up stuff just to be argumentative, to drag it on. As often as I am tempted to go several rounds with you, I am trying to break the habit.
Also, you often wait hours to post these things -- and no one is discussing my comment . They have gone on to other things]

Yeah, I can say what Bush “accomplished” wasn’t worth it.
So, after poisoning the Kurds, flooding the southern Iraqis, torturing, raping, killing and imprisoning his own people, that leaving that situation in place as it was would be all right?

The “stability” of Iraq is based on the whim of a man who might have been insane, as his sons were assuredly will.
Leaving that situation in place would have been all right?

We could have troops, carriers and planes, Observation posts, and Listening posts in Iraq for the next 50 years if we wanted to, just as we do in Japan and Germany.

Shall we take them out , and make our defense and intelligence activities weaker?

We can’t find Osama bin Laden. If you think he has gotten off “scot – free” (you might want to look that up – I think you are using that incorrectly), pick someone you think can capture him (Dog, maybe) and send him over to where he is (because you know) and let him collect hi $25 million dollar reward.

Now, I will trade my status quo ante for your status quo ante, anytime .

So you’re saying that bringing Iran back to the state it was BEFORE Bush took office is an accomplishment? No wonder you think Bush did a good job in the Middle East. You have incredibly low standards.

because I have mentioned it at least three times in these threads, and not one person has come forward to say he didn’t do it, or even that it wasn’t worth it (except for one person who opposes all wars). I therefore conclude that he accomplished what I said he did.

You would find more people saying that if you actually read the threads you posted in AFTER posting.

But hey, I’ll come forward (assuming you actually read this). After thousands of American troop deaths, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians lives lost (you know, your precious cannon-fodder?), millions of Iraqs becoming refugees, destabilizing an entire country, hundreds of billions of dollars wasted that could’ve been used to improve people’s lives, emboldening terrorists in Iraq, and letting Osama off scott-free? Yeah, I can say what Bush “accomplished” wasn’t worth it.

Oliver,
Good news.
Newsweek plans to publish a companion piece next week:
Why Obama needs to send a container box of shoes to the Mideast.

Pres Bush accomplished more in his administration in the Middle East than ALL the Presidents since May of 1948, even 1914.

I think that’s objectively true, but what’s far from objectively true is that all he accomplished was for the better. Many of the good things that have happened are of the fleurs du mal variety. i.e. If you dump a pile of rank manure in my bedroom, eventually pretty flowers will grow from it. Doesn’t mean I want you dumping manure in my bedroom. Many of Bush’s goals in the middle east were laudible. Trouble is he was absolutely crap at communicating those goals coherently and even more ham-fisted in pursuing them, both diplomatically and militarily.

As a result we are left not only with hundreds of thousands of dead people, but with a strengthened and emboldened Iran (Bush’s belligerence handed the hardliners a convenient and credible bogeyman, and that has contributed to limiting Obama’s options in the current crisis), chaos in Afghanistan that is spreading to Pakistan, skepticism and cynicism toward the US in the rest of the Islamic world and still a very, very fragile situation in Iraq. All of this, of course, also threatens the long-term security of our friends in Israel.

Currently Obama’s approval ratings in Israel are somewhat lower than Bush’s, but quite a bit higher elsewhere in the ME. By sending Bush there might be some marginal gain with the Israelis, but a complete undoing of whatever mending has begun in the rest of the Middle East. Far better for Obama’s people and Obama himself to work on easing Israeli fears while proceeding with their efforts on the broader ME stage. If you read to the end of the article you see that even Levey realizes that, and he pretty much admits that he’s just engaging in a provocative thought experiment rather than a serious policy recommendation.

For that reason, I would not classify his article as one of the dumbest things I’ve read this week, but some of the posts that take his idea seriously and think it’s a good one get close to that distinction.

I think this thread and many of these comments are clear, clear evidence of Bush Derangement Syndrome. I will not re-iterate what Pres Bush accomplished in the Middle East, because I have mentioned it at least three times in these threads, and not one person has come forward to say he didn’t do it, or even that it wasn’t worth it (except for one person who opposes all wars). I therefore conclude that he accomplished what I said he did.
Pres Bush accomplished more in his administration in the Middle East than ALL the Presidents since May of 1948, even 1914.
Nothing Pres Obama has done so far would make him look more statesman – like than such an appointment. The idea that you view the idea as ridiculous just illuminates your lack of foresight and imagination.

I know it.
You know it.
And the American People know it.