In 2008, I think the important question (to us, at least) will be whether the adventure was worthwhile for the American populace, who will probably still be paying the costs of reconstruction, and who may even still be militarily involved.
Well to answer your question look at history. Was WW2 in Europe worthwhile, the invasion of Korea in the 1950s worthwhile, the invasion of Panama and Grenada worthwhile, Afghanistan worthwhile? Which "invasion/liberation" action where the US has been successful has not been "worthwhile", in your humble opinion? They all seem pretty worthwhile to me, all made the world a better place, and methinks this one will have the same result.
Deposing Hitler in WW2 didn't make more Nazis, it made less. Installing representative democratic government with freedoms of expression won't make Arabs more radical, it will make them less. This all seems like common sense to me.
Perhaps the reason you don't get it is you have never lived for an extended period of time in a society that lacks the things Americans take for basic freedoms?
The choice isn't war or peace, it is ten more years of dictatorship, or 3 months of violent upheaval followed by 9.75 years of democracy. How one can argue for the first option makes zero sense to me...zero.
Don't you think that if what is going on now had gone on in the first Gulf War that Iraq would be a better place than it has been for the past 12 years?
Elroy |
