Quote:
Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Stepping away from the decision to go in for a moment, because clearly the battle lines have been drawn on that one, I'm curious whether you think it would have been an unrealistic alternative to involve the world community sooner after the end of "major combat".
At that time we went to the UN and got a resolution basically making the reconstruction our show. Then months later, once things started to go less smoothly, we went back for a new resolution that we hoped would somehow encourage other countries to help more. None have stepped forward, leaving the price tag on the shoulders of the American taxpayers to the tune of $100+ billion so far (including military costs).
After the experience of the first Iraq war, where through attention to our diplomatic relationships and some pointed arm-twisting from James Baker the US paid only $9b of the $61b price tag, are you really telling me that there was no realistic alternative to this administration's handling of Iraq? Have our former allies in NATO and the UN gotten so selfish over the intervening 10 years?
Or am I misreading you and this argument only about the decision to go in to Iraq? Even so, I would argue that the successful reconstruction of Iraq is part of "taking the fight to the terorrists" and I'm rather disappointed by our prosecution of that reconstruction.
(As I said yesterday, I don't have much problem with the ad, mainly because if people believe it they deserve Bush as their president)
|
I was focused on the former. With respect to the later, it would have been realistic only if they were willing to give up control to the likes of Russia and France, the very countries that were propping up SH. To me that was not a realistic alternative.
And it is not true that none have stepped forward. Some 35b was pledged a few months back (granted this is not enough, but it is also not unsubstantial).
Has the administration made misstakes? Absolutely. But that is inevitable in war. We are still only 8 months out and these things take time. What is important is that the administration has realized this (though not said so publicly) and has made adjustments as they have gone. This bullshit about not having a "plan" (current DNC talking point #3) is just that. You simply cannot anticipate each and every development ahead of time.
Like I've said on other subjects (e.g., effect of tax cuts) we have to give policies time before making a final judgment. The DEMs continue to jump the gun on most of their criticisms (the economy, the economy the economy). Unfortumately, most people have short memories so they don't have to pay the political costs.
