Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What about Kerry's plan differs in any relevant respect to Bush's plan in this regard--that Kerry's committed to cutting and running if necessary, whereas Bush won't make such a commitment?
|
You say cutting and running; I say setting a timeframe for success or avoinding a slow war of attrition that may never be lost, but most certainly will never be won.
An open window with no fixed plan is not a good strategy. If we are going to be in Iraq and Afghanistan, and anywhere else trouble erupts, we need to commit to either (i) going in to clean up hot spots then departing or (ii) taking the step of admitting that long-term
effective neutralization of unstable societies requires permanent occupation and control imposed from without.
I'm not necessarily against imperialism. It may be our one hope for global stability. I haven't really thought through the relative costs and benefits seriously enough to have an opinion. But if we're going to take that step, we'd better be prepared for a whole lot more international support than Bush is willing to bargain for.
