You are a man of conviction and principle, Michael. You know I respect you; I just have different opinions on the nature of this conflict- not its existence, just how we handle it.
Yes, we must fight the terrorists, but I felt Iraq was the wrong direction. Yes, we may have hid our head in the sand, not just about how pervasive their hatred is, but their ability to act on it, even in our country. We thought we were more invincible than we proved to be. On the other hand, before 9-11, wasn't the previous attack on our soil the first WTC in 93? Because of that infrequency, I don't know how people believe Iraq is related to preventing attacks; more likely, we may be foiling some with increased security processes and good undercover work, as London just did.
All my reading about Iraq, its past history and Saddam's rule, has led me to believe that he was not a major player internationally. He was a wannabe. The whole domino theory of taking Iraq and changing the face of the ME, bears some similarity to our theory about Vietnam, and that may be why people my age are concerned.
Because of the asymmetrical nature of the war, and the ubiquitous nature of radical Islam which you mentioned, I am not convinced that placing so many eggs in the Iraqi basket was the best use of our resources in this battle; I hope you are right, but unfortunately, the American people-- whether it is true or not-- did not understand the extent and cost of the commitment in Iraq. We were led to believe otherwise. Friedman wrote of this before the war, his worry that no one, even the administration, was realistic about what we were facing. Quotes along the way have validated this- especially Rumsfeld's about the length of time we would be there. So now you have an American people who are growing increasingly unhappy as the truth sinks in.
I do hope before my post triggered yours, you noticed I am opposed to leaving. |
