Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pgardn
This is so true for many people, thus the politicians they vote for align themselves. Get more money for MY state Mr. Representative, and I will vote for you. To heck with what it does to the country as a whole. I realize the system was set up this way, but its bad stuff.
And it is terribly clear to me that people do wish for failure so that their party can get into power. Democrats and Republicans both. It is sickening.
When we went into Afghanistan, there were hardly any dissenters in this country. Europe and most of the world was behind us. But when things go bad... its bail out time. I cant remember the votes exactly in the Senate and House, but the Senate was single digits against Afgahnistan, and the House was double digits against. It was overwhelmingly in favor of going after Osama Bin Laden in a Country with a government (read the Taliban) that said they would protect him, and basically what happened on 9/11 was proper punishment.
Iraq was of course very convoluted. WMD's... None. So now what are you going to do... And the country as a whole was convinced there were weapons. The Democrats saw most of the same information as the president and they believed. In fact I dont remember anyone saying there are clearly NO weapons of mass destruction. We had just been hit... People forget the situation at the time decisions were made. They just see the problems at present and then play a blame game.
The major mistake made militarily in Iraq is clear NOW. We did not send nearly enough troops to stabilize the country. Why? Because we were more interested in finding and destroying weapons that were not present. And we did not realize the brutal mastery of the Iraqi people by Saddam Hussein kept ethnic and religious differences at bay. We opened a can of worms, so now we bail out...?
|
Pgardn,
Thank you for bringing this thread back to "topic".
I've had enough of the insults (myopic= lacking knowledge, foresight), and attempting to "box" someone's opinions by discussing the individual rather than the issues presented.
That said, I disagree with two of your points.
1) Regarding Afghanistan, US troops were redirected to Iraq following Tora Bora. Currently, the Taliban is regaining strength. Karzai is called the "mayor of Kabul" because outside of his limited sphere, the country is in disarray.
2) Prior to the invasion of Iraq, there were UN inspectors attempting to locate the wmd's under the direction of Hans Blix. Powell presented the claim that there was "yellow cake" and the centerfuge tubes to the UN. This claim has proven to be unfounded.
So, to answer your question, do we "bail out?"
Unfortunately, our options are very limited at this point. Even though we've heard "stay the course" for quite a while, it seems that the administration is rethinking that strategy.
In my view, the US military will have difficulty containing a civil war. That had never been the objective and only calls attention to the lack of planning, lack of execution, and lack of disengagement options.
Some will label the idea of strategic redeployment as "cut and run". The situation is far more complex than that (but those words play well).
If you can suggest a better option, please share.