Policy feast, a critical view of Middle East foreign policy (Congress, Iraq)

[TnHilltopper]

While compiling some videos I have on the subject of US foreign policy in the Middle East, I stumbled across one I've used previously. After watching it again, I thought it would make great fodder for an in depth discussion.

It covers not only our foreign policy in regards to the Middle East, but also the changing face of American politics, how foreign policy has been driven by this change, and the failures of both Conservatives and Liberals to adhere to principle and political philosophy in favor of incumbency politics and perpetuation of the political body and what constitutes actual "supporting our troops", and American's lack of personal stake in our global adventures.

Due to length, I realize a one hour video interview is beyond most folks attention span so I'll point out that the corresponding transcript for each video segment is listed beneath.

Part I
Bill Moyers Journal . Watch & Listen | PBS

Part II
Bill Moyers Journal . Watch & Listen | PBS

Since Bacevich is a self described Conservative, I'm most curious to hear responses to his assertion that Conservatives failed to promulgate conservative ideas and principles. Also, since this interview was done just before Obama became President, how those on the left view his assertions that the Democrat majority Congress failed in its 2006 mandate to leave Iraq.

Another most interesting point was how Americans (even those claiming to be politically responsible citizens) are always looking to the NEXT President to solve the problems, when each successive President fails, the onus then moves to the next President. In other words, lack of political principle and courage to act like a President of a Republic instead of a high school class President promising candy for the kids just to get elected.

[TnHilltopper]

I guess I shouldn't have started out with "a in-depth discussion" as nothing screams Lyme disease around here more than in-depth.

Ok, to appeal to emotions then...

With only 1/2 of one percent of this country in service and less than 2% having any personal stake in our wars abroad, is the American notion of "support the troops" little more than hollow and empty words?

As Bacevich points out, using soldiers as a tool of preemptive doctrine in our foreign policy is squandering one of our greatest resources. Asking soldiers to rotate through 3,4,and even 5 tours of front line combat is too much to ask of even professional army. Wouldn't bringing home the troops to defend our country instead of the interests of ideologues in Washington think tanks who have never seen the inside of a tank, be a better means of supporting our troops?