Srexley, I'll try to answer your points in good faith. I'd appreciate it if you'd try to reciprocate by reading my post with an open mind.
The sentence you refer to simply points out that the hundreds of billions of dollars that we are spending, and will continue to spend in Iraq, are no longer available for expenditures to identify and nuetralize the active terrorist networks that exist all over the world. The sad fact is that our best minds, our best troops and our biggest efforts are now REQUIRED just to TRY to get Iraq back to the level of NON-TERRORISM it was in PRIOR to our invasion and occupation. Those funds and that manpower is finite and we are expending a huge portion of it in Iraq.
It may be true, as you say, that Iraq is NOW a significant piece in the war against terrorism, however that doesn't answer two very critical questions; has it become a significant piece as a result of blunders and miscalculations on the part of the Bush team, and are we doing more harm than good by getting our ass kicked there and retaliating by bombing buildings we control while we concurrently kill and arrest a lot of people who are not terrorists?
I get tired of hearing the Bush people say "better there than here." That's utter nonsense. Those that would attack us here are very well-trained and in place. They aren't being "wasted" running around with rpgs in Iraq. The threat they pose is as real now as it was before we created a killing ground for Americans in Iraq. As for the ones in Iraq, do we actually believe they could come to this country where the population DOES NOT SUPPORT THEM, and conduct a guerrilla war here? Of course not; the population would report their every move and everyday Americans would pick up their rifles and become their greatest enemy.
It is through our blunders that we have created a rich environment for them to thrive in and they are taking advantage of that blunder to kill us, increase their stature in the eyes of the world and incite brutal overreactions on our part that create far more new terrorists than we kill. In the process they are highlighting the huge gap between American ideals and the actions of this administration.
Hey, I'm all for killing, imprisoning and stopping terrorists and terrorism. I'm not all for using tactics that are foolish, counterproductive and wrong. Those tactics WILL result in "losing" to terrorists. We should remember that we must balance short term objectives with long term goals that maximize the real goal of our war on terror; the goal of enlisting the aid of all nations and all peoples to unite against the use of violence against innocent men, women and children and to encourage all nations and all people to have faith in the power of the international rule of law to resolve injustice.
As to whether we can "lose," I guess that depends on your definition. I would like to hear you tell me what you THOUGHT would happen in Iraq at the time of invasion, a month later and 3 months later, and then compare that to what is going on there now. What is it about the "liberation" of Iraq that makes you feel so confident that we are "winning?" What do you see happening there that will change the course of events that seems to be leading to greater and greater problems to the point where we are now targeting "possible" targets and killing innocents? |
