The path of least resistence - a slow and predictable increase in the use of force but not enouph to get the job done.
That's what made Clinton a terrible foriegn policy president. That's why Bush the elder left Sadam in power. That's why we tried to use mercinaries to do our fighting for us in Afganistan , etc etc etc.
===========================================
Actually, the above were your words. You didn't say "political expediency." My argument with you is not that a political decision was made. The decision was clearly made with influence of the State Department. Bush did not leave Saddam in power, as you said, because of "a slow and predictable increase in the use of force but not enouph to get the job done." I hope that clears it up for you.
I'm sorry that you didn't understand. I'll try to clearify. Read the first sentance that you quoted from me.
"the path of least resistence"
He took that path of least resistence. That is why there was a slow and predictable increase in Somalia. That is why Bush the elder left Sadam in power that is why we tried to use mercinaries to do our fighting for us in Afganistan.
Get it ?
Politicains take the path of least resistence. In other words ; the do what is politically expedient at the time. nt what is needed for the future security of America.
I hope that the politicians that screwed up the Gulf war the first time around loose this time and America wins.