I was watching Tom Ricks on C-Span, the author of "Fiasco".

[joemurphy]

He was talking about Paul Wolfowitz and the Neocons' "plan" for the Middle East. Ricks said that the Neocons believed that maintaining the status quo in the Middle East was what precipitated the 9-11 attack. He claimed that the Neocons went into Iraq precisely to stir things up, in the belief that anything was better than a "managed calm".

I'm coming to the belief that some problems aren't soluble. Maybe the lesson of Iraq and Lebanon is that "managed calm" or ongoing low level, but relatively contained violence is the best that can be hoped for in some contexts.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

1. How can 'managed calm' be worse than

violent chaos and war?! These people are f*cking crazy!

[joemurphy]

2. Ricks either didn't know, or failed to mention, that

Wolfowitz and his fellow PNACers wanted Clinton to attack Iraq long before 9-11. If that's what he told Ricks, he was lying about his real motives.