mml

This is really the crux of the problem. I am not an expert on "nation-building" so deliniating specifics is probably a waste of time. However, many of the things we are currently trying to do to improve Iraq should have been attempted in Afganistan. The reality is that Afganistan allowed the training and development of the actual terrorists who attacked our county. The country and its Taliban regime posed a specific, quantified threat to the U.S. and Europe. As most everyone has noted, the country is not secure and in time it is certainly possible that the Taliban or those like them will return to power. If we, in conjuction with the U.N.(the only institution that has had any success with nation-building) were to focus resources and manpower towards restoring Afganistan, I think we all would be better off. We could have allowed the Iraqi arms inspections to continue, while continuing to try to win international support for action against Iraq. If once Afganistan was more stable, Iraq was still a threat, we could have led and international force into Iraq and begun the process of invasion and rebuilding again. Hopefully with the support of the U.N. or at least a multinational coallition. Now, understand that this is not my ideal situation. I am generally opposed to the U.S. invading other nations, but if we are going to do so, we should do it right - well planned out, with overwhelming force and with an exit strategy. By the way, that is the Powell Doctrine from when he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

__________________
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
-Douglas Adams