Here's a "fresh" rendition of some of my thoughts: I hope a true WORKABLE policy emerges from this process, one that a meaningful consensus can embrace. The truth is, though, I don't think Bush is up to making and sustaining such a decision, one that ostensibly would require him to "change his stripes." Voices from many quarters are counseling regional talks, with Syria and Iran included, but Bush has rejected the idea unless those two countries meet preconditions. I think that is folly, and it reflects not a mature, wise judgment on the administration's part, but continuation of a (failed) anti-diplomacy stance, or, at least, a policy orientation favoring confrontation ("bring it on") over the arts of diplomacy and statesmanship. Indeed, my view is that conceived properly, the struggle with violent, radical Islam should be waged as a broad-front cultural (public relations/political) effort to influence the entire Muslim world to undergo their own renaissance with the result being an Islamic culture inhospitable to the radicals. I have seen none of this from Bush, or, more accurately, nothing on the scope or effectiveness needed. Iraq is just part of the picture, to my mind, a battle but not the war itself. Tactical concessions in Iraq, even to the point of a wisely-staged withdrawal, are not incompatible with success in the overall conflict. On the other hand, Iraq is critical in the sense of dictating, to some degree, the very character of the struggle herein out. Given the realities of the situation, which are paramount, a successful outcome, that is, one that is optimal to our interests and the legitimate interests of all others with sympathetic values, broadly defined, will greatly aid our struggle going forward, which may last decades upon decades.
