Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Anything which attempts to move the needle in the middle east is part of it in my book.
|
In your own posts, you bounce back and forth between treating Iraq as part of the war on terror and the opposite. Depending on the context, it makes sense to do this. There's no point in arguing about it in the abstract. I note only that the way in which you think Iraq is part of the War on Terror is not one that Bush has tried to use to sell the war to the American people. When he's talking about it, there are scary links between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Quote:
|
I do. What, are you going to go with the "avenging the old man routine"?
|
No, I think that he was uncomfortable with a policy of low-intensity conflict (i.e., containment) and after 9/11 felt justified in seeing foreign policy in Manichean terms.
I don't credit the father thing at all, though some people whose judgment I usually trust seem to.
Bush's foreign policy has been so occupied with Iraq that we have had to set other priorities in dealing with other countries on the back burner.
I don't think we've done much for democracy. The company is a ruled by a hodgpodge of warlords and factions, with Hamid Karzai's authority basically limited to Kabul. Afghanistan is a good example of the Administration's failure to follow through. Instead of committing the resources to really make it stick in Afghanistan, they were on to the next thing: Iraq. Although they denied it at the time, it's now clear (e.g., from Franks' book, I think) that the preparations for Iraq hurt our efforts there.
Quote:
|
But you have a point. Again, I think he's traded the support for the WOT.
|
At the start of your post, you were explaining that supporting democracy was an essential part of the war on terror. By the end, democracy is sacrificed in the war on terror. This strikes me as a fairly fitting summary of this administration's commitment to democracy. They mean well, and give it lip service, but it's not happening.
