"Your question looks like an obvious set up,"
Nah.
No 'set up'... these were the three options the Pentagon suggested in testimony before Congress about two weeks ago. (Perhaps to help those idiot Congress-persons to focus their minds.... :-)
So, no. I CLEARLY didn't make-up some sort of 'set up' question for you. Just the straight and narrow.
"...since there are likely sound arguments both for and against each of these choices..."
(As there would be, no doubt, for and against ANY policy option... obviously including the option of *making no changes at all*, but keeping policy exactly as it currently is. Which, interestingly enough, was the *one* thing the Pentagon rejected as a viable policy option... just as the WH has also rejected an unchanging 'stay the course'.)
"... but, my tendency at first glance is to go big and go long..."
Sorry GZ. You seem to be combining two different options.
The Pentagon advised that ('Go Big') a LARGE increase in US troop strength could potentially swing things back on a winning track for us.
They *also* advised that keeping the CURRENT US troop strength there fighting in Iraq for far LONGER ('Go Long') --- for possibly as long as another generation --- could ALSO potentially swing things back.
No one in US military leadership (to my knowledge...) believes that BOTH are either necessary (or possible). That much was clearly spelled out in their Congressional testimony.
PS --- McCain, for one, is clearly in the 'Go Big' camp. He is one of very few US politicians calling for a big increase in US feet on the ground in Iraq.
"...okay, now that I bit, let's hear what you have to say..."
Well, I am obviously in the 'Go' camp... as I've clearly stated my views here *numerous* times that our Saddam-toppling and Democracy introducing was successful, and an Iraqi civil war --- if that is what the locals are intent upon having --- could actually prove very beneficial to US and Western interests as it would occupy and tie up radicals on *both* sides of the Sunni/Shiite religious schism for a long, long time. And, ultimately, (as happened in Europe long ago) might plant the seeds for an Islamic Restoration, likely necessary for that part of the world to learn respect for pluralism and religious toleration.
So, I'm with the 'Go' option. (1/2 TRILLION American dollars being *more* then enough to commit to this gambit....)
Now, time to getting you down off the 'Go Big' or 'Go Long' fence... and bringing your feet back into contact with solid earth, and picking one or the other.
('Cause --- there is *absolutely* no way BIG & LONG can be combined, GZ. Not unless we enact a draft or some kind of mandatory universal service, and likely a big fat tax increase as well to cover the tab....)
So... 'Go Big' *or* 'Go Long' or 'Go'? |
