Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
What a sad commentary. What you in effect are acknowledging is that Bush/Rumsefeld did not understand or plan for the fact that an urban war creates an insurgency, not to mention the fact that, as many Middle East experts outside the Administration predicted, we would open the door to sectarian viiolence in a power struggle created by the post-Saddam vaccum......and we paid and are continuing to pay the price.
|
What I acknowledge is the fact that "policing Iraq" or "winning the peace" in Iraq is not and was not our primary military objective. I think some people thought it was, but the folks making the decisions didn't. So, how do you measure success - by a standard not set by policy makers? I think far too many people are making this far more complicated than it is.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Hundreds of billions of dollars go to Iraq for purpouses such as policing. Not only that, we are going into debt much faster than ever before as a direct result of this war. I think we can all agree that Sadam was an evil man and should have been stopped, but should we be doing this at the cost of our own country?
|
True - there are costs, but what would the consequences be if we didn't pay those costs. I remember a slogan from a transmission commercial where the guys says - "you can pay me now, or you can pay me later". I think ignoring the Middle East now would be a grave error and cost alot more in the future. I guess you think the opposite. If you are right we have incurred a cost that we can recover from, if I am right and we do noththing, we incur costs that we will never recover from. I think the risk of doing nothing is too high.