>I believe you can understand this. I do not believe tejek, A.S. or JF can. So I'm going to take a shot at it
Dave, I think it's you that's not getting it (not that I agree with the three of them at every turn).
When you're fighting a war that you have no choice but to fight (WWII, for instance), you can't use those as metrics -- if you don't fight the war, your country very well may stop existing.
However, these metrics do apply in a war of choice, like Iraq. If you had a crystal ball and could tell me for certain that the vision of a new, more democratic, more stable Middle East was being unfolded by these sacrifices, I'd be all for it. In fact, I was somewhat on board after reading "Rebuilding America's Defenses," by the Project for a New American Century, as well as a number of other books and articles on the topic. However, I began to doubt if the people who were formulating and preparing to execute the strategy could actually see it through. Now, I really think they can't (but still hope they can).
If we spend hundreds of billions on foreign wars that could be spent domestically, and see hundreds or thousands of our troops dying, all while seeing many things getting worse, including the metrics that John posted, then perhaps the war of choice wasn't worth waging. As of right now, I can't feel that it was worth waging.
-Z |
