There are many good arguments that the best Democratic election strategy this Fall is to wrap Iraq around every GOP candidate's neck and incessantly repeat, "It's the War, Stupid."  It's a similar suggestion to hanging the rubber-stamp label on the "Do Nothing" Congress, or just coming out and identifying the entire GOP as completely void of intellect as their leader, because "It's the Stupiidity, Stupid."  all variations on the "Had Enough" theme.

I cringe when I think of the arrogance it took for Bush to start the Iraq war.   The sheer naiveté it took for a man whose formal business degrees qualified him only to fail at every enterprise he undertook, whose life experience in no way prepared him to even suspect he was in any way capable of transforming the Middle East into a peaceful bastion of democracy -- settling decades of direct conflict and centuries of unrest with a simple promise of "one person, one vote."

Of course, as was always suspected, Bush had absolutely no understanding of what he was doing, how to do it right, or an appreciation of the consequences of the his actions.  The quote you're going to be seeing a lot of from former Ambassador Peter Galbraith's new book, The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created A War Without End, comes to the internetz via Raw Story (HT: SusanUnPC at No Quarter)

Galbraith reports that the three of them [Iraqi-Americans briefing Bush about the likely post-invasion political situation] spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam--to which the President allegedly responded,"I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!"

I guess "G-Dubz" must have thought that the two oil-rich muslim combatants in the Iran/Iraq war were duking it out over dress-codes.  It does explain his fixation on the idea that Saddam gassed his own people.  What Bush apparently never appreciated was that, to the dictator Kurds and Shia weren't "his" people -- if he considered them human at all.

Can there be any doubt that Bush's unfamiliarity with the complexities of the region  (I'm being kind here by not screaming that he's an ignorant ass) made him ripe for the seemingly thoughtful sales-job Cheney and Rumsfeld and their neo-con associates had been pushing for the better part of a decade?.  Finally, Richard Perle, Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and Elliot Abrams -- deluded ideologues all --  found a rube who wouldn't question why the magic elixir tasted like snake-oil; until we were so mired in the slimy goo there was no choice but the clash of civilizations their greed and power-lust craved.

The Ambassador, son of the late, great economist John Kenneth Galbraith, describes the root causes of the quagmire ...

Galbraith argues that because the new Iraq was never a voluntary creation of its people--but rather held together by force--America's ongoing attempt to preserve a unified nation is guaranteed to fail, especially since it's divided into three different entities.

a possible solution to the dilemma ...

"You can't have a national unity government when there is no nation, no unity, and no government," said Galbraith. "Rather than trying to preserve or hold together a unified Iraq, the U.S. must accept the reality of Iraq's breakup and work with the Shiites, Kurds, and Sunni Arabs to strengthen the already semi-independent regions."

and the chilling consequences of faithfully insisting, "We are an empire ... we make our own reality."

Galbraith says that, "thanks to George W. Bush, Iran today has no closer ally in the world than the Iraq of the Ayatollahs." As a result, he argues, sending U.S. forces into Iraq, has in effect, made them hostage to Iran and its Iraqi Shiite allies and left the U.S. without a viable military option to halt Iran's drive to obtain nuclear weapons.

So, what do you think are the chances that George has learned something from all this?  Do you think his on-the-job training has taught him how to avoid World War III?

I didn't think so.  And if you thought I was pessimistic, read Billmon.