I now officially join the ranks of those former supporters of the Iraqi War who openly and freely admit that the attempt to bring Democracy to Iraq has been a dismal failure.
I do, however, attach a few clarifications.
1) This war was fought against both Islamist infiltrators, Ba'athist loyalists and 50% of the population of the west (western liberals & Muslims living in the west whose sympathies were never unclear), who were goddamned determined to make sure that a war that was initially amazingly successful, would turn into a "quagmire" as fast as could be arranged. Theirs was a self-realising prediction, and they have been unequivocal in seeking to bring it about.
It was a war fought against lowlife democrat/labor politicians who sought to raise their personal profiles by saying the most detrimental things possible - and insuring a place within a sympathetic media. Together, these people gave heart to the Islamists, who saw hope so long as fully 50% of the people who populate the lands they call "Dar-al-Harb" (lands of war - lands yet to be conquered by Islam) shouted them encouragement and shouted against their own countryfolk.
2) This war could still be won - easily - if politicians were to simply insure that the requisite number of troops stayed put. That's a historical truism. But they won't, because if they support the war, politicians know that they will be attacked by the Islamist's allies within the western media and internet pundits (blogs like Daily Kos, who rejoiced regularly at the deaths of American troops). As the early period of the Roman Empire showed, if the force with the greater logistical and technological advantage equals those strengths in endurance, then the occupying force will inevitably win through. The Roman Empire only collapsed because they abandoned this principle. Politicians want to remain politicians. They can't do that with the press hating their guts. Thus, the war is lost. Through the weakness of our system and the treachery of our citizens, it is lost.
3) This was never, ever a war of exploitation, as lying organs of the Islamist and liberal propaganda have constantly attempted to portray. It was a highly idealistic attempt to bring democracy to a backwater region which - without its massive resources - would be a third world backwater (and is, in many regards, because of gross national mismanagement). Democracy does not belong to the west. It is an idea that all people should be able to choose their own destiny and play a real, tangible part in the governance of their nation. It controls the excesses of the state and tempers the ambitions of their national leaders.
But, as I now know, this was a mistake. It was a mistake because we believed too much in Iraqis, and because we believed too much in the humanity of the people of the region. We believed (naively) that they would welcome the fruits of liberty, the product of which took our ancestors thousands of years and oceans of blood to perfect.
Instead, they have rejected our gift and have proven, time and time and time and time again, that they are nothing more than a barbarous sub-species of humanity, unfit for even the most base levels of civilization. They are animals, pure and simple, and as they are animals, we should never again expect that they will be able to think as men or deal as men.
They want only to kill, rape, steal and destroy everything that does not pay homage to their wretched God.
I propose that not a dime more be spent nor a drop more of western blood be spilled in seeking to make tame the savages who populate the region. It is a phyrric exercise which we can ill afford to indulge in.
Let idealism be placed aside for now. We shall instead deal in the ruthless pragmatism of our subhuman enemies, and seek only advantage in our dealings with them. Better yet, should the opportunity present itself, we should take everything from them, and remove the blight of their existence from this planet.
They consider civilians legitimate targets, fine.
So should we.