In World War II, about 10,420,000 Americans, or about 7.45% of the entire nation's population, were in uniform.
Today, about 1,470,000 Americans, or about 0.566% of the nation's population, are in uniform.
It isn't surprising, therefore, that it's much less likely for a Congressman or Senator to have a child in uniform - it's much less likely for anyone to have a child in uniform.
I was for concentrating more manpower and firepower against al Quada in Afghanistan
We essentially killed all or mostly all of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan; the remaining fighting there is mostly chasing bandits around in the Khyber Pass area adjoining the lawless frontier of Pakistan. Concentrating more manpower or firepower in Afghanistan wouldn't do much, and wouldn't have done much in 2003.
Instead, we've essentially built a giant bug-zapper in Iraq, drawing our opponents in from all over the world to fight our soldiers. Creating a battleground in Iraq has saved us a lot of effort fighting Al-Qaeda in East Africa, in Indonesia, in Southeast Asia, in Yemen... and in the United States. Better that guerillas should fight the United States Army in somebody else's country, than the NYPD in midtown Manhattan.
In addition, the administration's long-term strategy is this: our opponent is Islamic fundamentalism, which is essentially a product of the Wahabi faction in Saudi Arabia. Fundamentalism is growing rapidly more popular in the Arab world, because of the collapse in popularity of the competing idea: Arabic nationalism, or Baathism. (Essentially an Arab version of fascism, begun by Nazi agents who tried to turn the Middle East against the British during the Second World War.) Baathism is dying out - the last Baathist states were Syria and Saddam's Iraq. The restless Arabs are looking to Wahabism to guide them instead. Al-Qaeda is a coalition of militant Wahabi groups.
By creating what amounts to a modern democracy in Iraq, the Bush administration hopes to create an attractive alternative to Wahabism: becoming part of the Western world. Hence the need to invade Iraq and overthrow its government, in order to shock the Arab world by providing a fresh alternative to either stale fascism or radical Islamism. So far, the strategy seems to be successful - the great success of the Iraqi elections in January and the so-called "Cedar Revolution" in Lebanon demonstrate that the Arab world is coming to terms with this new idea.
The Wahabis, who aren't stupid, are trying their hardest to defeat this project, by sending in as many militants as they can get their hands on, to fight the Americans in Iraq and to try to frighten the Iraqi populace. They are supported in this endeavor by Syria (who still holds out hopes for Baathism) and Iran (who hope to keep Iraq weak and unstable, and thus maintain their position as the strongest Persian Gulf nation).
Uh, remember Osama - - - "dead or alive" ???? He did 9-11 and we don't have him. It hardly makes me a "dove" to think he should have been our top target, not Saddam.
Some of what you say is correct. However, I believe that the admin is too PC. They always say a GWOT. Thats BS. Why don't they say a war on Islamic fundamentalist extremist. Thats what you suggest they mean, but they never say it. Is that not who we are fighting?
Do you suggest we leave Iraq now since we have all the terrorist right where we want them? Is the long term strategy to allow the terrorist in Iraq and then leave without defeating them? Do you suggest we allow a new country of Iraq to defeat the terrorist there while us, the most powerful country in the world cannot(we can put politics is in the way)? Why leave the country if thats where all the enemies are.
Sir, you understand the situation perfectly and express yourself with clarity. Thank you.
America Victa! Semper Paratus! Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Well put. I would prefer also bringing the battle to them than having it on US soil. The consequence of not brining the battle to them would mean a police state in the US to keep everyone safe. I would choose option 1.