At least for those who, for partisan political purposes, are hoping for bad news in Iraq. It's a roundup of all of the good things that are happening there, that aren't being prominently reported.

In a delightful irony, your link goes nowhere.

D'oh!

D'oh!

D'OH!!!!!

I'm going to submit a suggestion to MT that they put in a little routine to check for empty links in their next version. I do that a lot.

Good news indeed,
I suspect an interesting paradox.
Right now I think it is far more likely that Iraq will win (become a free-ish society) than the United States will (remain a clear strategic "hyperpower"). The two goals are not parallel.

The question is which is more important.

I don't think that we have a goal to be a clear strategic "hyperpower." I know I don't. My goal is to not have any more planes converting skyscrapers to drive-throughs. If become a hyperpower is a means to that end, though, I think there are worse things, particularly if we can help Iraq, and the Middle East, move into the modern ages.

Duncan:

What makes you think that US strategy is driven by a desire to remain a "hyperpower" (a term which, iirc, is French in origins)?

PNAC?

Certainly, the US does not wish to see unfriendly rivals gain in strength. But there are different ways to avoid that---and Iraq, I would suggest, was not invaded in order to prevent the rise of a rival hyperpower, but for a variety of other reasons (not least of which was the altered strategic calculus post-9-11).

Dean:
I'm thinking of the touguelashing your namesake got when he mentioned the possiblity of the United States not having the world's most powerful military.