Shattering Grand Schemes

If we originally went into Iraq because of a strongly held carryover belief from the first Gulf war that we didn't truly finish the job then the Neo Cons and Tom Freedman of the NY Times provided the triggering rational. They concocted a grand scheme of changing the middle east for the better by converting Iraq into a democratic state.

In a seemingly unrelated, recent Wall Street Journal article, the point was made that there is an inverse relationship between ideas and facts. The implication being that the more reality based facts at your disposal about a matter, the less convincing became any previously offered explanatory ideas or schemes.

That certainly seems to describe the present state of affairs in Iraq. After almost four years of efforts, Democracy doesn't appear to be in the offing and any changes on the horizon for the Middle East do not look at all promising.

Not unexpectedly then, the administration has, belatedly, pulled back, if not our troops, then certainly the original ideas behind the grand scheme. We no longer talk about Democracy and would be delighted with any approximation of stability in Iraq. No more talk about changing the region or even "staying the course".

In matters of this magnitude of importance, the comprehensive gathering of facts, or as it is referred to "facts on the ground", should alway precede the formulation of ideas and grand or even, not so grand, schemes.

After four years now, we have an awful lot of facts, but embarrassingly, are without an overarching plan. Nows the time guys. Put on your thinking caps, cross the aisle. but whatever you do, wishful thinking is off the table, don't stray very far from the facts.