Posted on 11/28/2007 10:33:27 AM PST by ButThreeLeftsDo
I think it was more a case of a.) a militarily astute administration keeping their objectives shrouded from the enemy coupled with b.) somebody not looking at a map or thinking strategically.
What purpose would've been served, exactly, if the Bush administration had stated "surrounding Iran" as one of its objectives at the outset?
Does anyone else find it odd that the Dems don’t realize that they are asking the new Iraq governing body to do what they can’t seem to accomplish.....passing legislation that is important to their citizens, but is held up because they can’t get along with the opposition party. Sometimes it seems they are holding the Iraquis to a standard higher than that which they can reach!
Don’t you think you/re being a bit unfair. We are still “babysitting” in most of the other countries we have become involved with....Korea, Germany, Japan, Kosovo etc. whether you see this as a good thing or a bad thing, it is the reality.
Only the truth. I like to know why my government is going to war. Frankly I would have been more behind the war if I had thought Bush was doing it for strategic reasons. Instead he said he was doing it to “liberate” Iraqi’s. Frankly, societies as a whole, deserve the governments they have. Iraqi’s pretty much deserved Saddam Hussein. It isn’t that they are worse than Muslims elsewhere, it is that they are the same. If you look at Muslim governments, they are consistently among the worst and most brutal in the world. It isn’t a coincidence.
The Shaw of Iran once said words to the effect that he would “like to govern his country like Sweden, the only problem was, his people were not Swedish”. They were and are Muslim, which is the problem with all Muslim countries, more or less.
“Don’t you think you/re being a bit unfair. “
Why is stating the truth being unfair? You would prefer I lie?
Didn't anybody tell you?
Instead he said he was doing it to “liberate” Iraqi’s.
Well, there were some other reasons, too. In fact, the Iraq War Resolution contained 23 of them.
What wasn't said, though, was that in order to effectively combat the threat of Islamofascism, we needed to fight an idea with an idea. And the strongest idea we've got in our arsenal is "Freedom". The War on Terror is very much a "hearts and minds" kind of war. Many belittle the term, but that doesn't change the reality.
Indeed, the grand strategy for the War on Terror (and the invasion of Iraq) was parsed with surprising accuracy by a reporter for the Hindustani Times in December, 2002 -- two months before the invasion.
It's a shame that nobody in the MSM had the time (or the brains) to take such a clear-headed look at the situation.
Don’t think I suggested you had lied or you should lie.....was just pointing out that “babysitting” after wars is not an uncommon occurence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.