Anti-Jewish sentiment is growing world-wide, especially in France.
This is happening at the same time that anti-US feelings are growing in the same countries. Are the two related?
The New Republic has a piece on Kerry's unwinnable position on Iraq
But Iraq isn't a normal issue; there is no opposite approach (or, at least, no responsible opposite approach).
Now, why is Bush rightt about the occupation?
The big lesson from Viet Nam is that unwinnable wars are bad. We could not invade North Viet Nam and the VCs were being supplied from outside by an other superpower (Russia).
That's the real lesson. The accepted wisdom lesson is that America went soft after WWII and Korea and is no longer willing to accept casualties.
Desert Storm proved that we were still strong but it was over so fast that casualties were not an issue.
Somalia was different. Our presence in Somalia was an afterthought by Bush (41) on his way out the door. He gave a quick explanation about needing to make sure that food shipments went through and left it to Clinton.
Clinton had real problems with the military, Somalia, and foreign affairs. His statements about hating the military had come out during the campaign and promises about gays in the military made relations between him and the Pentagon frosty. Clinton took office promising to fix the economy and, according to Woodward's book, hoping to ignore foreign affairs for the first several months.
The forces in Somalia suffered mission creep. "Nation building" was added to the lexicon. Then came the incident from "Blackhawk Down." In reality, the Army won that one, fighting their way through hundreds of opponents. That wasn't what made the news, though. What made the news was the image of American dead being burned and dragged through the streets.
Clinton turned the operation over to the UN and slipped out of Somalia. He took six months to do it but the impression was that the turn-over was much faster.
According to some experts, Al Qaida was part of the ambush and this encouraged them. One push and the Americans left. Osama Bin laden became convinced that this proved that America was hollow. That one strong blow and we would fold.
The insurgents in Iraq are hoping for the same thing. They hope that all they have to do is keep pushing and we will cut and run.
Since the overthrow of Saddam, sales of satellite dishes in Iraq has skyrocketed. Every time Ted Kennedy goes on the air saying that Iraq has become an other Viet Nam, militants in Iraq see it and tell their followers, "It's working, kill more Americans."
If we pull out now we will be suffering for it for a generation or more. Kerry knows this and that is why he does not advocate a pullout.
What if we turn things over the the UN and apologies to the world leaders? This is Kerry's plan and it is full of holes.
First - who says the UN wants it? Some countries like Spain might send a few troops if Iraq was under UN control but the US would still be doing the heavy lifting.
Second - why would things be better under the UN? The idea that a new government would have more legitimacy is silly. Do you really think that the Sunni in Falluja are shooting at us because they question the legitimacy of a US-created government? No, they want to take Saddam's place. The same is true for Moqtada Al Sadr who wants a theocracy run by Shiites.
If we take Kerry's route, no American President will be willing to use the military except as directed by the UN. That is not a good thing. None of Clinton's military actions were authorized by the UN (Somalia does not count - it was Bush (41)'s). More importantly, actions such as genocide in Rwanda were also ignored by the UN.
Seems outsourcing isn't such a great thing for everyone.
But others haven't learned yet