One can understand why you might not want to dwell on the first, but we probably do need to dwell on it so we don't do it again, and so we thoroughly analyze how we screwed up. We'll probably have to do that under a different administration, obviously, but it's well worth doing- and not just to smite Bush- though that's a pleasant dividend, it's hardly the reason to do it. I have never ignored the second question, btw. That's a straw man in your post.
The possible involvement of Turkey was forecast by a lot of folks- including me- before the war ever started. Now that it has happened, it seems more proof of the problems with the "first decision" as you put it- to ignore the invasion by Turkey or it's implications for the first decision seems odd to me.
As for the second decision, we're damned either way, imo, so we should go the way that has the best chance of saving us money, which I suspect is phased pull out, if the Iraqis don't step up to take control. We cannot stay in Iraq forever, or for 100 years, or for "as long as it takes". That just isn't going to work for the American people (and it isn't going to work for the ME, either, I suspect). |
