Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
[B] Interesting that the only alternatives presented are waiting to plan more and sending in sniper teams. Snipers and planning were done. Afghanistan wasn't rushed or doesn't anyone recall the praise that Bush got after 9/11 for not just going out and bombing the hell out of places immediately?
|
Personally, I had no problem with the lead-up to Afghanistan.
I did have a problem with the transfer of our attention from Afghanistan to Iraq before we were even done in Afghanistan. Wolfowitz, Cheney and other have already talked publicly about how they wanted to use 9/11 to attack Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with 9/11. They succeeded in talking Bush into their plan.
What would I have done differently? I would have stayed in Afghanistan worked on building up a relationship with the Afghan people, and began serious reconstruction efforts. Afghanistan will continue to be a source of terrorism until the warlord system is dismantled, and that will only happen with the development of education, jobs, and resources in the area.
Rather than attack Iraq on our own, I would have reached out and built up a coalition, slowly, with UN approval, to go in and remove Saddam. Had Bush & Company not been total dicks to the rest of the world, this would have been possible. Then, rather than dealing with a half-finished job in Afghanistan and a quagmire in Iraq, we would have been dealing with an improving situation and a new ally in resource-rich Afghanistan, and a coalition-led war in Iraq. Iraq would be mostly peaceful, much like the British-run regions are peaceful there today.
As a bonus, the USA would have tens of billions more free dollars to reduce the deficit or improve the economy.
My .02
