Some of those watchers note a distinct change of mind, soul, and spirit in the way the two operations were conducted.
They conclude that something changed U.S. troops from performers in a compassionate coalition during the Bush I war, to the different, torturing, and primarily destructive forces we have seen during Bush II.
My theory is that there was a coup within the U.S. military where neoCon elements gained control over traditional military ideology.
The old doctrine was that the military kept afar from, but subject to, the civilian realm.
That old doctrine was overthrown, and the propaganda ideology reminiscent of despotic regimes we traditionally hold in contempt took over in the old docrtrine's place and stead.
That old traditional military doctrine prefers and relies primarily on convincing a target population through psychological operations, thereby avoiding armed conflict where ever possible.
In the civilian realm that same technique is called diplomacy and mutual cooperation; such as what the United Nations was designed to do.
The coup changed all that for various reasons, and the military took on a renegade spirit, producing what I call the neoCon dogma.
That dogma then infected the republican party with operatives, as it got in bed with or embedded the press.
Operatives were specifically used to interface with and to infiltrate and indoctrinate the party and the press, which ultimately established and promulgated a new public rhetoric and dialogue.
The republican party had been correctly seen as the party which was more susceptible to an overthrow of its moderates, and to a takeover by its extremist elements to replace those moderate elements.
One could say that in some ways the coup was "brilliant" and it worked.
But now with the value of hindsight, we see that the neoCon element has destroyed the U.S. economy, the Iraqi economy, and even the republican party; in the sense that none of them are the same or as healthy as they were before that neoCon dogma came into power.
In hindsight it can be clearly seen that the traditional military doctrine worked better, so now the moderates within the republican party are wondering exactly what happened, and how to fix it.
That is a titanic struggle which is sure to continue for several years, and it should be noted that the neoCons will not go down easily.
Republicans Mike Murphy and Joe Scarborough were talking with Democrat John Dean on Morning Joe (MSNBC), today, about this very issue, which is the focus of a book by Scarborough.
They all agreed that the republican party needs to reject the neoCon dogma and ideology, or it will never be the controlling party again.
But take heed, the republicans will never completely reach that goal until they first realize the source of their party's illness, and then treat it at the source.
The democrats are the ones who need to beware now, because the neoCon elements have set their sights on them, discarding the republicans as the party of their attention.
Note that my use of the term "military" in this post applies not only to those in uniform, but also to those controlled by those in uniform.
In a book review over at Lew Rockwell's website, in the section "The Straussian Love Affair with War", it is pointed out that warmongering is a trait of the Straussian neoCon elements who infiltrated the republican party.
The counter to that Straussian ideology, American tradition, is contrasted in the post The Greatest Source Of Power Toxins?
The definition of the word "coup", as I use it in this post, and as the context suggests, is "a highly successful, unexpected stroke, act, or move; a clever action or accomplishment".
The associated extreme edge phrase "coup d'etat" was not intended nor used because that connotes an illegal change, and since we know hard liners can legally take leadership or lose leadership over the military, a political party, or the federal government, the word "coup" was adequate.
The next post in this series is here.