Z,
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.
Just think how preposterous what you just said is.
You seem to be asking for guarantees. There are no guarantees. What guaraneees did Churchil have, in standing virtually alone vs. advancing German armies? If things turned differently, Britain could have lost half its population fighting losing war.
You seem to be saying that you are for action A if in the long run it turns out to be be the winning option. But it is not known, it can't be known ahead of time how things will turn out.
What you are saying is not leadership. It is John Kerry campaign. He is on both sides of the issue. If today, Iraq was peaceful, if Iraq had just concluded its first democratic elections, he would be talking about how he made it happen with his vote for the war, and he would be scheduling a trip to Iraq to have a photo-op with the newly elected leaders.
If things were horrible, he would be campaigning as a born again Dean. Since things are quite bad, with possibiligy gor an improvement, he can't decide which bandwagon to jump on.
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.
Aha! So if a stock doubles, you will tell that it was a good choice, if it tanks, you will tell us that it was not worth buying.
Afghanistan decision is ok because it turned relatively ok, but you would be running around with crocodile (or real) tears if we had substantial losses and in a stand-off.
Joe |
