Replies

It is very unfortunate that the administration has not thought it politic to through some channel, state a that there were really significant strategic US interests involved in the Iraq operation which far outstriped making the Iraqis happy gum chewing democrats.

After 9-11 the Suadis, who were already nervous about it, got really spooked about the growth of Al Quiada or AQ like subversive movements within the kingdom. Ever since the Khobar Towers bombing they had been politely suggesting US forces were becoming unwelcome guests and would we please plan to move on. Since the air fields in SA were key to the US keeping the embargo enforced on Saddam Clinton and Albright had pretended not to hear. After 9-11 the Suadis got really insistent that we start seriously planning to leave, sooner rather than later. Us military presence in the sacred sandpile and the launching of attacks on 'Brother Arabs' from that hallowed precinct by the infidels was seriously exercising the dim minds of the Muslim masses in the kingdom. Our military presence was becoming a clear negative to the maintenance of the pedophile dynasty.

If we packed up and moved out that would be the de facto end of enforcing the embargo on Saddam. The Gulf Arab states wouldn't be happy to host a big chunk of the USAF for bombing and patrolling the skies over Iraq even if there was really room enough on their air fields. Within a year or so the embargo regime would de facto collapse and in the midst of the 'Global War on Terrorism' Saddam could emerge from hiding and proclaim again "Brave Iraqis you (I) have won." Not the message we wanted to send. Just wait the infidels out and you will win. Plus having Iraq go right make into the atoms and bugs and gas business.

So we finished off Saddam and eliminated that possibility. The administration doesn't want to have this come out because it would hurt the 'honor' of the pedophile dynasty and we keep to the story we did it all to bring the blessing of liberty to Iraq.

It is interesting how many historical events are practically pre-programmed with the prior actions (or inactions).

Giving up on Vietnam emboldened Soviets with the Afghanistan gamble. American response was to support mujahideen; and Osama got the taste of action there.

Not finishing off Saddam in 1991 guaranteed that we would have to face the challenge in the future, again.

While many of these events took years or decades to unravel, our cultivated 24/7 attention span eliminates an important virtue of patience. We (as a nation, not FR-people) are loosing forest view behind the trees. Nobody can act without mistakes, but in general, the course in the Middle East is the correct one (according to me). I agree with Ladeen's call "faster, please", but I want to add mine here "patience, please".