I must agree with Pat Buchanan who said:"And if Prime Minister
Nouri al-Maliki, his 900,000-man army, and Shia militia cannot defend Baghdad
from a few thousand Islamist warriors, America is under no obligation to do it
for them."Also, remember please that we left because Maliki told
us to get out.
Are we foolish enough to think we can rid the world of terrorist? The only
practical thing we can do is stop being the world police.
"The invasion that toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein may well have been
finished at that point, but the mission of establishing a free, peaceful and
self-sustaining government there was far from over."--- Why was
it our place to not only go into another country and force out the leader that
held it together (bad guy or not), then assume we should choose their government
for them?--- What about the fact that we destroyed the
infrastructure of the country and killed a couple hundred thousand of its
citizens? Do people with no electricity or water and a dead son start loving
the USA and wanting to be like us?--- What about the arrogance of
thinking we are so great that groups who have been adversaries for hundreds of
years will drop that and follow us?--- And what about the trillions
of dollars drained from our country? Our dead boys?Bush's
statement was ignorant. Obama's was "trying to make the best of a bad
situation and get the heck out of a place we can't fix"The
DN seems to revel in knocking this President, which I find to be wrong.
"The United States withdrew too early, reacting more to political pressures
at home than to the long-term dangers of an Iraq too unstable to protect
itself."And how much longer would it have taken for Iraq to
become stable enough to protect itself. Like any good parent, you do all you
can to prepare your children to go out in the world and then you have to let
them go. Sometimes you have to force them to go and provide for themselves.
The United States, the parent in this scenario, had already given way too much
in terms of dead soldiers and our national treasure. In what was an ill-advised
venture in the first place, we did more than our part in trying to bring
stability and freedom to this part of the world. But at some point it is up to
the people of Iraq to take charge and do what is necessary. Clearly the people
and government have not done their part in this challenge. Maybe they lived too
long under the strong arm of Hussien where much of their daily lives were
determined by the restrictions placed on them. They need to get over it.
I guess I need to be educated about the risks to U.S. interests. I agree that
failed states can be a haven for terrorists, but I'm not sure I see why
Iraq is unique in that regard. What other American interests are at stake?
I think that if we are to be the world's policeman, we ought to have a
separate tax placed upon us that separately funds this activity.Let
the Congress and the Senate debate how much we are willing to spend on these
"adventures" and fund it as a completely separate expense from the rest
of the defense budget. I would suggest either a national sales tax to do so, or
a separate line item on the federal tax return, which all American citizens
would pay. It is only in this way that each of us knows the full extent of the
cost of war.Oh, and we should probably reinstitute the draft is we
are going to be policeman to the world as well. Again, every citizen, male and
female, is subject to service. No exceptions to political children, and none of
this Air Force reserve nonsense.
George Bush Jr. was warned that invading Iraq could spark a war between Shiite
and Sunni Muslims. Apparently Bush was unaware that there were two different
strains of Islam that had been warring with one another for the past thousand
years. Although the Sunnis are a minority of the population, they had been
running the country for the past several decades, and they were not particularly
kind to the Shiites. It was obvious to many observers that free and open
elections would result in a Shiite government which would seek pay-back for many
decades of repression. This is exactly what we have.It is
instructive to note that government of Iraq, even now that they are under siege,
is rejecting offers of assistance from Sunni groups. They want Shiites to remain
in power, and no compromise with Sunnis will be tolerated. The U.S. has nowhere
near enough power to end the centuries old Sunni/Shiite schism.
There's no fixing Iraq, certainly not by us. Insufficient analysis, and
greed for access to Iraq's oil reserves, motivated the American attack on
Iraq. Saddam Hussein was, fairly enough, an evil dictator, and many of his
actions and tactics in his own country were indeed war crimes in any
international setting. But, he was sitting on a volcano of sectarian
resentments, in a highly volcanic region of the world. The US
invasion of Iraq pulled the cork out of that volcano, and the violence will
continue to escalate, causing untold misery, until it is spent. There is no way
to quell a civil war which is part class warfare, part holy crusade, and part
retribution. At this point, the US is not party to that conflict. The Shia and
Sunni factions are in various measure, terrified of each other, and trying to
conquer each other. The vast majority of the country would prefer to just live
in peace, but the longer this goes on, the more people will get drawn into that
volcano.No, we can't fix it. We can only make it worse.
Also, since you were high energy supporters of the Iraq invasion, why did we
We withdrew along the timetable set by the SOFA agreement between the Iraqi
government and the Bush administration in 2008. Obama did not set our withdrawal
timeline, that was done before he even became president. I served in Baghdad
from 2003-2004 and the mission was extremely unclear. Now, according to this
editorial, you want us all to go back and stay for an undefined amount of time.
Which side do you want us to support? The Shia's who are aligned with Iran,
make up the majority of the Iraqi population, and want to impose an Islamic
theocracy similar to Iran? The Iraqi constitution already states that Iraq is
governed by Islamic law. Or do you want to support the Sunnis who are aligned
with ISIS and Al-Qaeda? Those are the only two choices. Or do you just want to
do the opposite of whatever President Obama suggests? That is likely the reality
The statement made in the opening of this editorial "In Iraq, the mission
still is far from accomplished." is true! Unfortunately the mission in Iraq
is an "Mission Impossible"! It matters not what we do, how
much we invest, how much of our blood we shed, or how long we stay, we will
never be able to change the hatred among the three factions that want to govern
Iraq! Simply put we CANNOT fix it! It has gone on for hundred if not thousands
of years!Every politician in DC knows we are fortunate to be out of
Iraq, but as hideous as it is, they will in an effort to demean and discredit
the other side of the isle, beat the war drums and profess we should again get
involved in another countries internal affairs by using our military might!Correct me if I am wrong but was it not Malaki who asked us to leave in
Dec. 2011, after refusing our offer to leave troops on the ground if they could
be assured of immunity. That immunity being declined by the Iraqi
Legislature!We are out and should stay out.
We could occupy Iraq for the next hundred years and the Sunnis and Shiites would
still go back to fighting each other the minute we left.
Before we engage in any military action I would like to see the following
amendment passed.For any and all military engagements, the draft
must be reinstated. The family members of those in Congress, and any others
deemed to have an interest in going to war (such as contractors) cannot exempt
their families from the draft who would otherwise be fully eligible.This way everyone has skin in the game. I feel we would be far less likely to
beat the drums of war knowing that our family may very well be placed in danger.
We would stop to ask, is invading Iraq worth potentially sending my son to war?
We have an all volunteer force now, that is tired from 14 years of
war and several tours of duty. But, we as a nation, seem all to eager to
"put them to work again".
"but the mission of establishing a free, peaceful and self-sustaining
government there was far from over"Others have commented on this
statement correctly. Let remind everyone of the hubris and historical ignorance
it takes to think we can "establish a free, and peaceful Iraqi state"Remember the state of Iraq is a construct of the post WWI era. The
Iraqis have never voluntarily come together to form a state. And if one has any
sense of history they know that loose and confrontational societies always
revert to authoritarianism for control. Heck even the United States quickly
moved from a confederation of states to a much stronger federal system and a
federal constitution. So yes the situation is what it is but please
don't DN and anyone asking for intervention, base your thought on the
fantasy that we can "establish" a free and peaceful Iraq.
And so you are saying to send in troops. Your approach didn't work in
2003. It made things much, much worse. Who is writing your editorials? Dick
Cheney? This newspaper editorial board baffles me. Talk about naive,
irresponsible and ignorant of history. Didn't you also advocate arming the
Syrian rebels, the same folks leading the charge into Iraq? Your judgment, and
that of McCain, Chaffetz, and the entire Bush neo-con team, is utterly a waste
of time and devoid of good sense. We tried your way, and all it did was
destabilize the Middle East, feed the snake of terrorism and burdened the West
for decades to come. Our national interests are exactly not what you are
Reading the comments, it seems to me that the editorial board would do well to
listen to its readers. They are providing a lot more insight and common sense
than this editorial.
It needs to be pointed out that it was the Abraham Lincoln's Mission was
Accomplished. If this President was called to task like Bush was, especially
over this banner flown by a proud crew that his handlers did not get there in
time to have taken down we would not be in the mess we are in world wide. Smart doesn't cut it wisdom does. Obama and Nixon are widely regarded as
the smart presidents. Wise not so much. If Obama could just channel Eisenhower
on the golf course or Truman's The Buck Stops here name plate; I for one
would feel much more better about the country's future. As it is I feel
like I did after watching Jimmy Carter's Presidency sink into the sunset.
I voted for him and was rewarded with a 12.5% VA home loan rate. So much
promise just like Obama and so little result.
17 comments and counting and nary a one in support of going back into Iraq. The
DN apparently didn't learn the first time. These people have been at war
for hundreds of years, and thousands of years before that. We are literally a
small blip on their history, and the more we try and go in there and impose our
will on them, the more we are going to generate enemies. They will unite only
to fight us until they can go back to fighting themselves. Let the terrorists
terrorize each other. There is no "stabilizing" the Middle East. It
can't be done by any outside force. This is one of those things you just
never do, like invading Russia--if the Red Army doesn't get you, the winter
will. STAY OUT!
Last Saturday's Washington Post had an editorial cartoon by Darrin Bell
showing a dike holding back hordes of people with the label "Centuries of
Tribalism", no doubt depicting the situation in the Middle East today.
There is one sword sticking through the dike and as President Obama is walking
away from the dike there stands a suited elephant (The Republican Party) stating
"This never would have happened if you'd kept your finger in
there".This editorial seems to be a first step in blaming
President Obama for whatever happens in the coming weeks and months in Iraq. He
didn't start the fight and he got us out - as is so often mentioned by my
good friend Lost in DC - according to the same timetable that President Bush
established. Whatever is happening there now is not because we left too soon.
But it might have something to do with the fact that we went there in the first
Are you talking about our borders, or just Iraq?It's
interesting to note that the Deseret News' editorial board has been fully
supportive of open borders and amnesty, which clearly create a risk to our
national security, as well as our economy. And now after many days of terrorist
attacks in Iraq, decide that perhaps there is some national interest in Iraq as
well.In all such situations, when chaos occurs in other countries,
it would be wise for us to get our own house in order first.Our
nation has given a green light for many years for people to cross into our
country without restriction. Just a few days ago, this paper's editorial
board had the gall to say that people who are here illegally or want to come
into our country illegally are deserving of jobs here. Their opinion was
rendered with total disregard for 90 million Americans who are either without
jobs or have given up looking. Board members smugly hide behind the
banner of compassion. However, that compassion is only offered to illegal
immigrants, not to American citizens.There's no greater treason
than to do something good for the wrong reason.
I was waiting for the editorial from the Deseret News that suggested we get back
into Iraq. I knew it was coming. This editorial comes within 2 weeks of another
editorial that lambasted debt restructuring for struggling college students as
too expensive, and not something the U.S. could afford right now. Now we have a huge hawkish segment of our country and the DN, wanting to
intervene in all kinds of foreign conflicts. With this comes the borrowing and
spending of billions of dollars. If pundits, politicians and editorial boards
are going to continue hammering fiscal conservatism, at least they could remain
consistent! Otherwise, it just appears duplicitous and disingenuous.
Does the DN know that Iraq's borders were drawn up by the British empire?
Does the DN news understand that we cannot force people to accept our way of
living? Our own people don't even live the way we want people in the middle
east to live. Look at all of the violence all around our country. We call them
barbarians in the middle east and use that as justification for invading and
killing them. It is high time we look ourselves in the mirror and clean our own
house before we start throwing stones. Also, this "opinion" piece by the
DN is devoid of any rational or logical argument for "finishing the
job." What is the justification? What American interests are there in
invading Iraq, again? We all know there was no justification in the first place
and all we have done is torture and maim that country with our military might.
The American people say not to continued unjustified war in the middle east.
Only the oligarchy wants these unjustified wars.
I was in Iraq in 2004-2005 as an old gristled Sergeant, then I retired after I
returned home. Too many good men and women were killed and permanently maimed
while serving in Iraq. The Iraqis hated us and threw rocks at us as we drove
through the country. They set IEDs alongside the roads. It was a horrible
place to serve, and when we left a year later, nothing had changed. There were
far too few of us to maintain order. It seemed like the military was
half-committed to winning and didn't expect that some Pepsi cans on the
side of the road would cause abject fear in otherwise tough men. I
saw comrades from my own platoon blown to bits before my very eyes by an IED.
It is something I will never forget no matter how hard I try. Their lives were
NOT worth it. This editorial trivializes the lives of the men and women and
their families who were forever changed by this misguided war. Let them work it
out. There is nothing we can do to permanently keep order there. Read their
history and you'll understand.
"but the mission of establishing a free, peaceful and self-sustaining
government there was far from over." That may still the mission in a few
idealistic minds, but due to the reality of the situation probably a few hold to
that view. Furthermore, do we as a nation, have the right to change the will
the people in how that want to govern themselves?
When the American media uses the term "American interests" it is likely
that they mean American Business Interests. The America government, according
to our own Constitution, has no interest in the religion and religious affairs
of foreign nations. And if we the people support the Constitution, we
don't either. However, in very many cases, religion is simply
a tool used by businessmen to enslave and oppress people, and that's where
American Business Interests become involved. Americans in foreign business are
unhampered by American regulations and morals are thus able to compete in
foreign business using all the dirty tricks of criminal capitalism including the
use of the U.S. military.The Iraq war was started by American
businessmen and extended as long as possible by businessmen of the
Military/Industrial complex. While we talked a lot about democracy we did
nothing to bring it about or to improve the lot of the people.
As a two tour Vietnam Veteran, I thought for years after the loss in Vietnam
that all was in vain. However, never did I think that it would be worth it to go
back after losing over 58 thousand American lives there. The main problem in
Vietnam was that we were backing a corrupt government in South Vietnam, and the
North Vietnamese were dedicated to re-unification, and our mission there was
less defined.So our losses in Iraq may also have been in vain, other
than getting rid of Saddam. Our losses in Iraq does not seem to me to be a
reason to return in support of the corrupt Iraqi government that has
systematically removed the Sunni population from government. This appears to bed
a domestic fight to me.In case you have forgotten, after all of the
terrible things that happened in South East Asia after we left, Vietnam is now
our friend in the region as Vietnam tries to get out from under China.
It's not our problem. We can't police the world. We should just stay
" . . . 'We’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable, and
self-reliant Iraq,' just as infamous and embarrassing."No,
I don't think so. GW's proud "Meeshun Accomplished" boast will
resonate throughout the centuries as the most foolish utterance ever made by an
American President.Besides, the words "sovereign, stable, and
self-reliant” was an accurate description, relatively speaking, of Iraq
when we left.True, that status didn't last long. But that was
because the initial plan, as with almost all GW expectations, was unworkable,
naive, overly-simplistic, and completely unrealistic.“The
United States withdrew too early, reacting more to political pressures at home
than to the long-term dangers of an Iraq too unstable to protect
itself.”No, that is incorrect.The US was complying
with SOFA . . . agreed to by GW Bush on behalf of the United States in 2008.
“ It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities
by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December
31, 2011” - wikipediaAnd we kept the promise GW made.Besides, being there longer would not have helped anyway.
Joe Biden was right when he urged that Iraq be divided among the three warring
factions. Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the southeast, and Shiites in the west.
Re: ECR After all of our pontificating,ECR Burke Va. in one short sentence
says it all! " Whatever is happening there now is not because we left too
soon. But it might have something to do with the fact that we went there in the
Utah had the lowest recruitment in the nation during and after the Iraq and
Afghan wars. I am not sure we should be calling for the U.S. to return boots to
the ground from our safe view in the peanut gallery.
Our problem in Iraq was simple:Imagine you and your family are
enjoying dinner. Suddenly someone from your block kicks down your door, holds
the father at gunpoint, and says they are running the family now. Furthermore,
they refuse to leave until you accept them, and their way of life as superior to
yours. Also, for fear of retaliation, they will not leave until you are
supportive of them, and their actions in destroying your family.If
you fail to comply, you are seen as an enemy (or terrorist as we call them) and
they shoot the father, but the two conditions above still apply.I
must confess, I would not be very supportive of this.
I would love to better understand who writes the foreign policy op-ed's for
the Deseret News. There really should be public signatures when the writers are
promoting war.The alleged justifications here for sending our brave
defense forces to intervene, kill, and die in a sovereign nation (that never
attacked our nation) could be used to foment war, perpetually, on any spot in
the world.When we follow the narrow-minded, bad advice in this op-ed
we break the golden rule, we violate our own Constitution, we lose trust in the
world, and we often make potentially bad situations much, much worse.Please, Deseret News, consider finding some voices that are willing to
represent something other than the talking points of warmongers to balance out
this editorial board.
This opinion is so sad on so many levels. It exemplifies the attitude of
meddling in the affairs of other nations that has messed up so many countries so
badly, particularly in the Middle East. Yes, I dare say that US involvement is
not always the "blessing" that many would argue it is . . . Rather than
putting our own house in order so that we can be a beacon of light, we seem
determined to impose our corrupted will on a world that is increasingly tired of
US. Religious misrepresentation and the War on Terror are used to stir citizens
up to levels of fear that persuade them to support foreign entanglements - just
what our Founding Fathers warned against. American Exceptionalism used to be
real, now it's just an excuse to preserve our oil-related, dollar hegemony
at the cost of real lives.
“There is one and only one legitimate goal of United States foreign
policy. It is a narrow goal, a nationalistic goal: the preservation of our
national independence. Nothing in the Constitution grants that the president
shall have the privilege of offering himself as a world leader. He is our
executive; he is on our payroll; he is supposed to put our best interests in
front of those of other nations. Nothing in the Constitution nor in logic grants
to the president of the United States or to Congress the power to influence the
political life of other countries, to ‘uplift’ their cultures, to
bolster their economies, to feed their people, or even to defend them against
their enemies.” (Ezra Taft Benson, America at the Crossroads, August 30,
"...which makes President Barack Obama’s declaration in 2011 that, on
the occasion of the U.S. withdrawal, “We’re leaving behind a
sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq,” just as infamous and
embarrassing." As the 'mission accomplished' statement? I
don't think so. This is a really underwhelming attempt to throw something
at President Obama. We left behind a soverign, self reliant Iraq. What
they've done with it since then is their fault. What we did with it prior
to that, which precipitated this entire mess, well that belongs to you know who.
@Dragline"Utah had the lowest recruitment in the nation during
and after the Iraq and Afghan wars. I am not sure we should be calling for the
U.S. to return boots to the ground from our safe view in the peanut
gallery."I agree with everything you say, BUT, we need to get
away from the phrase "boots on the ground." We need to say our sons,
daughters, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, and friends. These people are
not BOOTS ON THE GROUND but living, breathing, precious souls whose lives are to
be valued and not relegated to inanimate objects.
Let's get real, it's all about the President. If the President wanted
to send troops the GOP would be all over him. He pulled out the troops so it
was a mistake according to the GOP.The correct position was never to
go into there in the first place and the correct decision is not to go there
All my life and before that our government has been too quick to get us into
wars. Its like a scourage on this nation.Other Nations need to learn
to handle their own affairs. The Iraq Shiites should have treated the Sunis
better once they got into power. We admonished them to do this. They didn't
listen. Now they are paying a price.If we go back over there until
things are settled, we will never leave. How many more trillions do we need to
spend? How many more lives ruined and lives lost?If we are to bless
this world let us do it through our example. Not by perpetually going off to
What TO do in IRAQ:1. Become energy independent here in our country.
We have the oil and the technology but not the leadership in the White House or
the Senate ..yet. An energy independent America is an America who doesn't
need to worry what is going on in the middle east as much if at all. No more
wars. No more wasted American blood and tressure. To accomplish item #1 we need
a Republican in the White House or at least NOT a Democrat. We also need to get
the senate away from Harry Reid.2. Rebuild our military - especially our
Navy. We need several new battle groups complete with carriers and submarines
and cruisers etc... We need to be able to actually be a "Global Force For
Good" again. We do this by NOT jumping into un-winnable wars like Iraq or
Afghanastan but projecting an undenialable presence of power to all the bad guys
in the world - the message is if you mess with the US you will be reduced to
ashes. It's called a deterrent or "Peace Through Strength". What NOT to do in IRAQ: What ever Barack does....
@patriot"What NOT to do in IRAQ: What ever Barack
does...."There you have it folks. President Obama
could send in two Divisions of soldiers and the entire Air Force and it would be
wrong or he could do nothing and be wrong. Howard Beal (above comment) said it
" We do this by NOT jumping into un-winnable wars like Iraq or Afghanastan
but projecting an undenialable presence of power to all the bad guys in the
world - the message is if you mess with the US you will be reduced to
ashes."You do realize that theses two statements make no sense
at all pasted together?Ahhhhhhh, probably not.
@CHS85 - "Boots on the ground" is the phrase everyone in the military
uses to mean that if you don't have soldiers on the ground, you don't
own it. Air power is transient, "boots on the ground" is more
permanent. It doesn't demean the lives of those who wear them.@Patriot - conventional forces deter conventional forces, not terrorists.
While your concern for the Navy is justified, it doesn't deter non-state
bad-guys, like terrorists. More subs and surface ships are needed to deal with
piracy and state sponsored aggression.I spent 2003-2004 in Tikrit
and all over the Sunni Triangle. I mourn for the people we helped and progress
we made there, now lost. I have a friend in the ground from an ambush, and more
wearing Purple Hearts, but we believed what we did was right. I still do. If
we are willing to flush it all away, then I fear for the aftermath and the cost
then as opposed to the cost now. Let's be careful in this and not rush in
without a plan to succeed.
@Jack, who says, "Let's be careful in this and not rush in without a
plan to succeed."Take a step back. Before you start drafting a
plan, you need a goal. We never had a clear one, and we don't have one
now. ("Take out Saddam's government and the people will cheer us"
was an ignorant delusion, not a realistic goal.)There are three
major populations in Iraq. We can't help the Kurds too much, because
Turkey, our NATO ally, is terrified of their own Kurdish separatists and the
last thing they want is Kurdistan on their border.We can't help
the Sunni militias. Their brutality is unsupportable, plus we'd end up at
war with Iran, who are supporting the Shiites.And, we can't
help the Shiites, who are the government in power, and the majority of the
population because THEY DON'T WANT US THERE.Plus, we can't
simply conquer the whole country and sort it out later. We tried. It
doesn't work and it just gets them and the entire Islamic world mad.So, if there's no achievable goal, no plan will achieve it.
Ignore anything and everything the right says right now about Iraq. These are
the same clowns who started this mess to begin with. Shame on the
dnews for not putting a name on their column. Anytime you write an opinion piece
promoting war, you should list a name. We the people deserve to know who exactly
is pushing us into war.
Where in the constitution does it say the military needs to be used to obtain
@CHSThanks for your service and your continued fight for
"America". This editorial disturbed me and I was grateful that the
poster with the most "liked" response was yours. The DN editorial board
showed little regard for human life or the complexities of other cultures or the
lessons of war.
‘In our opinion: In Iraq, the United States has the responsibility to
address threats to American interests’======== Agreed.And like Captain Moroni & General Mormon -- when Iraq
fires missiles into the United States, not once, not twice, but showing
restrain until the 3rd time -- THEN I will support an attack...BTW
-- U.S. interests are not banks, oil fields, businesses, war profiteering, or a
vast Industrial Military complex.
There you have it folks.I can hardly imagine Pres. Thomas S, Monson
advocating war.Yet, here we have Deseret News Editorial Board doing
Bush declared "mission accomplished" because HIS mission to fill a bunch
of his buddies pockets with tax loot was WAS accomplished.Every big
setback in Iraq used to correspond with another hike in gas prices. Every yellow
alert terrorism status had another 1000 no bid contracts going along with it.
Mission accomplished indeed. If republicans win in 2016, it will all
start over again. Look forward to $6 a gallon gasoline. $8 when they bomb Iran.
Years before becoming Vice President, Joe Biden had advocated a plan for Iraq
that splits it into Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurdish states. Obviously we
didn't do that but what do we have now? A Sunni uprising against a
Shi'a majority while Kurds are trying to gain independence.
Brer Rabbit -" Vietnam is now our friend in the region as
Vietnam tries to get out from under China."It's interesting
and ironic isn't it?When we win a war, our postwar involvement
is often lengthy and tremendously expensive.We maintain military
bases in Germany, Japan, and South Korea; and we have spent TRILLIONS over the
years to keep the peace.If we had won in Viet Nam, I'm sure
that we would be seeing the same scenario.But we lost, and
"Vietnam is now our friend."We lost the war in Vietnam, but
we won the peace. And it's not costing us trillions like our victories
do.You know, I think we may have discovered why Rome fell. They
were just too successful at war. And it's maintaining post-war stability
that saps an empire of its resources and its relative strength in the long
run.We should learn from that. And AVOID WAR.
Bush is a genius.See, by invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam
(who was bluffing on his WMDs) he created anarchy.Now that Iraq is a
mess, a more extreme government (ISIS) will take over. These guys are even
condemned by al-Qaeda for being too extreme. This new government actually will
obtain WMDs. So yes, WMDs will be found in Iraq. It was all a matter of
what are our interests? OIL!!! Why aren't we drilling and becoming oil and
energy independent so we don't have to give a second thought to Iraq?
Personal opinionThe Editorial Board has it wrong this time just like
they had it wrong last time when we preemptively attacked Iraq.They
ought to read each and every comment to this article.
@Bob K:"Why was it our place to not only go into another country and
force out the leader that held it together (bad guy or not)..."Because the bad guy was working on acquiring WMDs. He had serin gas and
yellowcake uranium."...then assume we should choose their
government for them?"We were hoping that democracy would take
hold... but it didn't. They seem to like Shariah better."Do people with no electricity or water and a dead son start loving the
USA and wanting to be like us?"What they do want is to fly more
planes into our buildings, killing more Americans. Haven't you been paying
attention to what the Muslim jihadists have been saying... kill Americans and
Jews?"And what about the trillions of dollars drained from our
country?"Don't worry. That's Chinese money."Bush's statement was ignorant."That wasn't
Bush's statement. It was on a banner on the ship."Obama's was 'trying to make the best of a bad situation and get
the heck out of a place we can't fix.'"He should have
known that it would backfire.
micawber"I guess I need to be educated about the risks to U.S.
interests. I agree that failed states can be a haven for terrorists, but
I'm not sure I see why Iraq is unique in that regard. What other American
interests are at stake?"Oil. I expect that you own a gas
vehicle.@Roland Kayser::The U.S. has nowhere near enough power
to end the centuries old Sunni/Shiite schism."Once that argument
is settled, they'll be after America again. Remember the ISIS leader who
said: 'I'll seen you in New York'?@FatherOfFour:"Obama did not set our withdrawal timeline, that was done before he even
became president."But, he coulda changed it. Just use one of
his Executive Orders.