I fully support the President's efforts in the WOT following the 9-11 attacks. His leadership in this area has been remarkable. Its also important to keep lines of communications open and diplomatic arrangements in place when it comes to government to government dealings in the ME and when America's best interests are at stake. I advocate keeping US military bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, long term. The US military needs to have short travel distance if a quick response arises to protect and defend US interests. Generally, I support killing as many "jihadists" and "Islamofascists" as possible, before they kill anymore Americans.
However, I have never supported the US govt once again becoming policeman to the world. Not under liberal Democrats and definitely not under a GOP POTUS. I don't support nation building and I definitely don't support any attempts to democratize the Islamic world. No POTUS could accomplish that in 300 years, let alone the less then three years Bush has remaining in his term.
I think you're missing an important point. Playing world policeman is incompatible with encouraging democracy long term.
What we are trying to do in Iraq is protect the fledgling government there from falling prey to a well funded and organized minority that wants to oppress and control the people.
We are trying to keep a minority from forcing their will on the majority and oppressing them. However, we can't do that long term or we end up beign oppressors ourselves in a way.
What we are doing is giving the Iraqi government a chance to get organized. We're giving them a chance for their leaders to learn to effectively govern. We're giving their military and police a chance to learn to work effectively.
We're stepping down as they are able to step up.
If you just go into a place like Iraq and take out the top leadership, you don't change things other than the top leadership. That's a mistake we've made many times in the past.
What we are doing in Iraq is giving the people of Iraq a chance to determine what they want. I believe that long term it's the best approach. However, it's not a guaranteed solution. It also isn't a fast or easy process. No one should expect it to be. However, it does seem to be working.
The problems we have seen in Iraq should have been expected, and to a large extent have been expected. It's not a simple or easy process to take millions of people and get them to agree on how to move a country forward. We've got hundreds of years of experience at it and are no less divided than they are politically, we just don't solve our political differences by shooting each other as much.
What we are doing ther is helping provide stability. Helping to change things so that they resolve their differences polittically rather than by shooting each other.
As they are better able to provide stability on their own, we play a less active role.
If you think this is a waste, or that the risks outweigh the chance of success, what do you suggest?
Should we have allowed Iraq to trade one dictator for another and let religious extremists take control? We've seen over and over again that extremists are quite capable of wresting control over moderates who end up trying to appease extremists trather than oppose them.
It's easy to criticize Bush's plan because it's guaranteed to have setbacks along the way. It's not going to be smooth or easy, and if you concentrate on all the problem they face and ignore the problems they have overcome and the progress they've made, it looks like it isn't working.
However, if you look at Iraq and all the progress they've made despite the incredible challenges they face, it is working. Progress is being made.
If you look at Afganistan, the progress they made was incredible, and they probably benefitted from the fact foreign insurgents concentrated on trying to grab control in the relatively wealthy Iraq rather than in the relatively poor Afganistan.