But the long term is a separate issue from whether we are better off TODAY, right now, because of our actions in Iraq.
Maybe you would argue we are not, but it is an argument to be made. I believe we are, and I think Gates is wrong to dismiss the notion in deference to the separate question of whether we can sustain or strengthen our gains.
When WW2 started, did it mean that WW1 was not worth it? If in 10 years Germany decided to launch a 3rd world war, would it mean that WW2 wasn’t worth it?
We gave a people a chance for democracy, freedom, security, and a better life. Whether they end up taking it or not, that in itself was worth the sacrifice, in my opinion. Moreso than what we have acheived so far in Afghanistan.
“When WW2 started, did it mean that WW1 was not worth it? If in 10 years Germany decided to launch a 3rd world war, would it mean that WW2 wasn’t worth it?”
We had no choice about whether to fight WW2. Japan had already attacked us and inflicted massive damage on our navy. Germany declared war on us shortly after. We fought for our survival as a nation.
I think the point Gates was making was that since we didn’t find WMD’s in Iraq, which was the original reason for our going to war, the justification for the war became that removing Saddam would lead to a safer Middle East. That remains to be seen.