Replies

You make excellent points. Your comments make me think that looking at what happened, or didn't happen, prior to 9-11 is less important than looking at what we're doing, or what we're NOT doing NOW but should, to combat international terrorism. I'm less concerned that the President was "obsessed" with Iraq right after 9-11 than I am that perhaps our involvement in Iraq is preventing us from doing something bold and necessary in Iran, Syria, and North Korea.

Our policy towards Iraq (and Vietnam) is being watched by other nations. Qadaffi has publicly said he will disarm his WMD programs (and this was reportedly negotiated behind the scenes by the American government).

If Korea and other nations wanted to stretch America's troops thin, they would have struck during the war in Iraq. Syria and Iran ARE providing agitators who keep things from getting peaceful in Iraq. Attacking Iraqi, American, and other nationality civilians seems to get them the "best" press for going against American policy.

Civilians are unarmed while the military has all types of firepower. If American military personnel are killed, there are many countries around the world that flat out don't care. Kill some foreign national civilians and America will get the blame for "not doing enough to keep the peace"/"creating the problem in the first place". How many of these foreign nationals would even be doing business in Iraq if we hadn't gone to war to remove Saddam from power?

I'm less concerned that the President was "obsessed" with Iraq right after 9-11 than I am that perhaps our involvement in Iraq is preventing us from doing something bold and necessary in Iran, Syria, and North Korea.

Here's what I always tell people: If you examine the map, you'll see that we just happen to have several fully armed and operational battle formations, supply lines secured (including a huge international airport), right next to both Syria and Iran.

What a coincidence.