Also, all his training is as a 'fighting man'.
I had a similar thought, Freely. He has not only vested interest, but a narrowed perspective. An expert in his field, but very much formed by an entire career spent with one priority- protecting America. A noble and honorable man, and an admirable calling. But that doesn't give an entirely free pass on what he's written.
The article was replete with some pretty emotional negatives that show his bias as in "several very angry retired generals today, who evidently have not achieved their lofty goals, and insist on ranting and raving about the war or "the foulest, power hungry, anti-country, self absorbed group of individuals".
He also manages to go after the education system, the failing legal system, and all the leading Dems, including Hillary. And he generously allows that those who don't approve of the war aren't unpatriotic, no, they just don't understand! They're stupid.
I can agree with him that we certainly upset the balance when we deposed Saddam. It was one of the reasons many were against the war. And immediate withdrawal strikes me as unrealistic and probably damaging, but staying until they have a functional democracy also is asking us to pay a pretty dear price for one admin's hubris. Especially if you don't buy into his existential argument. (He fails to mention the mutual obliteration goals of Christians against Muslims through the ages.)
Aside: Are we the longest standing Republic? I thought the Roman Republic lasted over 400 years? We aren't terribly old. |
