I’m not a fan of GB. Just too weird for my tastes. However even a blind squirrel gets a nut every now and then. We should not fight wars we are unwilling to win. Since that seems to be just about every one we’ve involved ourselves in since WWII, we need to seriously rethink how we approach this stuff. Dear leader has done a heck of a job of ensuring that no ally actually trusts us to watch their back. So I think we’re going to end up in a more isolationist model whether we like it or not.
The founding fathers were actually pretty clear about what they thought: honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
I agree with you. My opinion has absolutely nothing to do with Glen Beck. It is immoral to have our troops killed in wars we have no intention of winning and no intention of allowing them to FULLY fight.
And no matter which of these sides wins in Iraq, we serve notice that a reprisal is way too easy, that we can take them out whenever we want.
Also, no matter which side wins we lose. Maliki, a Shi'ite, was ALREADY aligning quickly with Iran. It's no accident that Iran is fighting on his behalf. In fact, the Kurdish and Sunni regions of Iraq were already incensed by the fact that Maliki was stripping them of their positions and turning them over to Shi'ite replacements.
So, in my opinion, the best course for the US to pursue is to first send a clear message to the Kurds that as long as they fight for their freedom that we'll see they have the tools to fight with. So far as the Saddam Husseinites who are coming again to power in Sunni neighborhoods, let them fight the Shi'ites and take each other out.