Saddam was a terrible, aggressive dictator. We took him and his regime out - mission accomplished, we won.
The world (including the US) was uncertain, but suspected, that Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs. We went in and verified that there are no stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq - mission accomplished, we won.
Now, what are we sticking around Iraq for? When we talk about “winning” the battle in Iraq, what does that mean? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe there has ever been a country with tribal origins that has adopted a Jeffersonian-style democracy, so if putting that in place is our goal, it will likely never happen. If we want to stick it out until the election in January, that’s fine, but can we leave afterwards? If we want to stick around indefinitely to ensure that the Shiites don’t slaughter the Sunnis and the Kurds, I don’t agree with that - pull back, protect the Kurds that have been our long term allies, and let the Iraqi people figure it out for themselves.
Looking forward, what are we trying to achieve? Won’t a long term occupation of Iraq cost us billions of dollars, kill or maim many of our soldiers, and divert us from the task of hunting al Qi’ada?
No, we’re staying in Iraq until we “win” according to Bush and Kerry (they just differ on how to do it and how long it will take), but what is “winning” over there now that Saddam is gone and we’ve confirmed that no WMDs exist?
I would think “winning” means setting up a stable, democratic government. Try to imagine what would happen in Iraq if we just went in, toppled the government, and then left.
Hmmmm… I wonder if we’d be better off, or worse off?
There actually is an intelligent line of reasoning that says we should do exactly that. We should pick governments that have to go, take them out, and hope what replaces it is better. That leverages our strength, military might, and minimizes our weakness, nation building. If it doesn’t work out well, repeat the process.
I don’t agree with that philosophy, but you have to admit, it makes sense.
Only superficially. In real life, it’s a shipwreck of an idea. For the very same reason that liberals who want to socially engineer a nation by micromanaging every aspect of life always fail.
Ack! What a lousy thing to accuse me of. I’m no libertarian. They have some specific issues right, but I think very few of them grasp the full import of their philosophy. Anarchy. I’m a true conservative. Good luck finding another one.
I think we mainly disagree on some things in degree, only. On some others, forget it
