No, I'm looking for the U.S. do do something effective that addresses a real problem. There's no excuse for the fact that throoughout the last ten years the U.S. was far more effective in maintaining a no-fly zone over Iraq than at protecting the citizens of this country from foreign assailants.
Agreed! I would rather have had us take out Saddam in '91 when we had the chance, than to go through the subsequent 12 years of slow warfare that we did. I did not like the "sanctions regime / no fly zone / starve him out of power" approach. It didn't work with Castro and it didn't work with Saddam.
That's why I applauded when we changed our approach and escalated the war to a shooting war, and ousted Saddam militarily once and for all. If you, like me, disliked the former approach ("sanctions/no fly zone"), then why do you not welcome the latter (preemptive military strike)?