That is, until the fake-conservative wing of the GOP made it so.
Long story short, military officers holding the rank of major or lt. commander or above were surveyed about the results of the Iraq war. One very interesting conclusion was that "either China or Iran, not the United States, is emerging as the strategic victor" in the Iraq war."
Couple this with the words of Chuck Hagel, one of the hardest working (and most honest) Republican Senators to come along in a while, in his new book: that the Iraq War might have been one of the five biggest blunders in history.
Quote from the article: "Hagel said that despite holding one of the Senate's strongest records of support for President Bush, his standing as a Republican has been called into question because of his opposition to what he deems 'a reckless foreign policy ... that is divorced from a strategic context.'"
Sorry fake-conservatives. If your loyalty to America and your conscience conflicts with your loyalty to the head of your party, guess which one should win?
IF IT'S BAD FOR THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT, IT'S GOOD FOR EVERYONE ELSE.
Posts
Artificial Intelligence in the Knowledge Economy
2 hours ago
2 comments:
Deciding to do nothing about Hussein would still have been a decision. What would the situation look like over there if we'd gone that route?
I'm not saying it would have been worse, but let's not kid ourselves that everything was hunky-dory until we kicked over the hornet's nest. Would the AQ Khan network have been uncovered? Would Saddam be stirring up trouble with his neighbors?
Maybe not, but it's good to keep in mind that we're not comparing the present situation against some ideal world; we're comparing it against other options that each sucked pretty well in their own way.
It bears emphasizing that "no massive unilateral ground invasion" is not the same as "do nothing". Same applies to Darfur.
Post a Comment