Presidential Debate

[Occhidiangela]

Well, this is a nice sentiment; but there are many sides to every argument and every opinion, including whether the earth is flat, or war is peace.
[right][snapback]56999[/snapback][/right]

The earth is not flat, and war is not peace. What opinions do you refer to, you just presented two non-facts.

Care to elaborate? Post was almost too brief.

As to MEAT's point, I'll add a corralary or two.

1. One, having gone in and dismantled the skeleton of Iraqi government -- the wisdom of that is still open to debate and shall be for decades -- there is a practical obligation incurred that falls in the realm of equity. Repair the damage and leave Iraq in at least as good a condition as we found it. That is NO trivial undertaking. It requires immense political will, drive, effort and ability to withstand distraction. It requires on a national scale what we in the military call Mission Focus. We owe the folk of Iraq no less. Will America cash the check written in emotion in Fall 2002/Spring 2003? I have no idea.

2. Having created a power vacuum, a whole host of players wish to fill it, for their own ends. A good parallel is a gangland war in New York City when a major Mafia Don dies and there is a power struggle for his "turf." Any number of outside actors, to include Iran but not limited to them, have an interest in keeping Iraq unstable, or under to influence of parties sympathetic to their side. Iran in particular has a vested interest in the US being focused on Iraq and not them.

That a civil war is going on in parallel with the efforts I mentioned in paragraph 1 makes the reconstruction/Marshall Plan style efforts difficult. It does not help that the international community has shown its cowardice: Kofi withdrew UN HQ and support after one car bomb. That was damaging to UN prestige and reputation. That the US handled the entire reconstuction the way it did helped the effort not at all. (Remember the quibbling over who gets contracts?)

The civil war also provides an opportunity for those inimical to the US to be targeted and killed because their recruiters lied to them. Many a young man is induced into heading into the fray in Iraq, with the promise of being able to kill lots of Americans. Some are trained, a few are well trained, and many are minimally trained. They die by the dozens every week.

One of these days, the word is going to get out that the recruiters are lying. When these amateurs run into Marines or Soldiers, trained and dedicated professionals, they tend to get slaughtered, by the cartload.

The strategy of attrition undertaken by the Anti Iraqi Forces (those against the nation getting stable and getting back on its feet, to include such jagovs as Sadr and Zarqawi) attempts to challenge and overcome American will. Their assumption is that Viet Nam is a cookie cutter template for how to deal with Americans.

What remains to be seen is whether or not they have guessed correctly. Has America learned anything in 30 years time? Data point Somalia says no. Data point Bosnia says yes.

It's a gamble. In the mean time, these arseholes have embarked on a program of

"If I can't have it, no on can, I'll blow it all up."

And some idiots in the UN, and in Europe, think these goons can be negotiated with.

Nope.

That said, just because something is hard does not mean you give up.

Occhi