|
I pretty much agree with everyone so far in this thread. The only modification I would have is that I do think the war, rather than a failure of policy in itself, was a result of previous failed policy. Since the first major terrorist attacks on the US (maybe the Marine barracks in Beirut or the hostage taking in Iran) we've followed a losing policy. Every attack since then resulted in minor consequences for those perpetrating the attack. This fact isn't lost on anyone in terrorist organizations. The US has been seen as weak because we had no stomach for any type of prolonged conflict. That perception has certainly changed since Bush layed out his plans for the war on terror. Those governments who openly supported terrorism just months ago are, at the least, being forced to hide their support or stop it completely for fear of losing the power they've worked for years, decades, or lifetimes to achieve. This shift in itself is a worthwhile reason for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Throw in the possibility that Iraq could become a viable democracy in the center of the middle east and there's even more reason to think it was the right move.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
|