Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not sure what you mean in your question, but the US will be viewed as the catalyst for changing the region for the better.
|
Just as likely an outcome will be that history writes that we destabilized one of the principal countries containing the Islamic revolution, and while we focused on Iraq, central Asia and Saudi Arabia came unglued. (BTW, this scenario is a popular strategic exercise right now in the military -- what do we do if simultaneous crises erupt in the Caucasian mountains, Uzbekistan, and Saudi Arabia?).
And, remember, we, through our installation and support of the Shah, have been a significant catalyst thus far for the Iranian revolution; Kermit Roosevelt never really planned it, but he, along with Khomeni, have to be viewed as the parents of that revolution.
Quote:
|
Yes, and by the way, just because I support the decision to go to war does not mean I believe the execution has been good. It has been terrible. And yes, at least a generation, but it will happen.
|
The way it was executed is going to be a significant part of the war's legacy. When you unleash war, this is one of those foreseeable consequences. In the past recent engagements in Iraq and the Balkans, there was extraordinary effort given to containing the impact of war, and, indeed, it was at the very heart of the way Powell, for example, conducted war.
This administration, however, seems to be pursuing an ideological course that is at odds with and specifically seeks to undermine the Geneva Convention, from Guantanamo to A.G.
