Would you please tell us what "in it to win it" means, as it's said by Sarah Palin?
How many troops does that take? How much money would that cost? Should Congress have to approve that?
You know, the little things.
I give GWB credit for getting Congress behind him before he committed to Iraq. He also went the the UN & Nato before he did anything.
Palin comes across from the very convenient position of “Armchair Quarterback”. From a military standpoint, it is not even close to being that simple. Which is why one of the requirements to being Commander in Chief, should be prior Military service.
It speaks to intentions before logistics. It speaks to commitment. It's about counting the cost beforehand, not dithering once you've launched a few Tomahawk missiles.
You're a Christian, right? You know the story Jesus told about the man who went to build a tower, but didn't have the wherewithal to finish?
That's NOT the way we should plan any military action. Our leaders should count the cost BEFOREHAND, and lay it out to the American people. We want to see clearly defined objectives, with measurable results, and a true exit strategy.
For example, enforce a no-fly-zone and protect the rebels until they did the work to oust Qadaffi, then support those rebel factions who weren't al-Qaeda or Iran-influenced (there have got to be some) so that they form a new government, not the whack jobs. Go in, do the job, shake hands with the winners we pick, tell them we will buy their oil, and get out.
I'm not saying that's exactly the way it would go. I think that's close to what Palin has in mind. Whether that's actually it, who knows. But she is clearly trying to advocate counting the cost before we go in, not dither like Obama once the missiles hit their targets.