Why the Iraq War was a Bad Idea

I posted this there to alert the radical left that we need to do what Barack says. We need to get the terrorist in afghanistan.

Obama A.Q.Khan Bush terrorist winning !

We all have heard last Month that Bush says we are close to being attacked again here in the U. S. A.

I just read the 9-11 commission report.

page 397 at the bottom you will read about their concern with A.Q. Khan

He had been put down for a while but recently after Musharif lost control of the fired judge A.Q.Khan was loosed and is now a real threat to continuing doing his work.

Barack Obama understands what is going on and has inside information that we are not privy. Barack is speaking out about concerns that are important to us all. Bush would love another attack here in the USA right before the next election. Who suffers? We all do! We need to alert americans.

That Bush has lost the ability to deal with Al Qaeda in Pakistan.

I see Bush's intelligence community facing a real problem.

If Musharraf falls - which seems inevitable if current trends continue - will Islamists get nuclear weapons and plutonium?

With Bush and Cheney in the White House, we really are heading for Armageddon.

""BUSH ADVISERS SEE A FAILED STRATEGY AGAINST AL QAEDA""

July 18, 2007

New intelligence estimate
released by White House shows Bush administration strategy for fighting Osama bin Laden's leadership of Al Qaeda in Pakistan has failed, forcing adminstration to consider more aggressive measures; ,

""Pakistan Loosens Some Restrictions on Disgraced
Nuclear Scientist""

July 3, 2007

Pakistan has eased some
restrictions on the disgraced scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, the developer of the country's nuclear bomb, who confessed to having run an illicit global nuclear-proliferation

The way I see it, the central problem with the Iraq war has been the same problem all government action inevitably confronts, namely the epistemological limitations of central planning.

The cultural, political, and of course historical complexities of Iraq merely complicate the general problem of unsuccessful planning and action by the state. Government by nature acts outside of the realm of economic action. Economic action is, of course, individual action based on individual choice within the limitations of the real world.

We understand why state interventions fail in domestic policy. We as conservatives have written libraries full of volumes on the subject. (Sowell’s are some of my favorites.) However many of us have seemed to be unable to extend this concept to the military.

The military is merely the most palpable, undisguised instance of government. It is unabashedly destructive. Destruction is its raison d'être to be sure. Building, certainly nation building, is not.

Success in war derives very much from respecting the limitations of war and the state. Certainly post war success throughout modernity has hinged on the willingness to allow economics back in—liberty—so that the foundation of civilization might resume.

The state is the state is the state. Situational differences found in state action cannot resolve its core limitations. We risk grave disappointments when we wish the lion to be the lamb.

I just have to say that the "mysterious processes" that Libertarians invoke to assert that everything turns out for the best through individual to individual transactions is not borne out in real world experiences. If man's basic nature is sinful - which is the basic reason that conservatives promote limited government - that same sinful nature is at work in the market place, as well as in church and family. There is no reason to assert that everyone's sinful actions will somehow cancel out and result in the good. Which means, I think you epistemological analysis is flawed.