Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
The second clause is the one that has me outraged. I guess you don't get it either. The constant refrain that Iraq is not part of the war on terror was bad enough,
|
It's not. Constantly repeating it is, and putting forth flimsy and discredited evidence for the case, won't make it so.
Or, stated another way, if it was part of the war on terror, it was a tactical error in that war, an error based on both falacious assumptions and bad intelligence.
Quote:
|
but to say it has worsened terror? Worsened terror? You people can continue to live in your dream world where, unless something related to the acts of a non-US country is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or unless the president happens to be a Democrat, it really isn't happening. The corallary, of course, is that if there is a rumor of an act committed by the third cousin or someone who is related to a republican by marriage, it must be true.
|
I believe the decision to wage war in Iraq is one that will, in the long run, worsen terror, mainly for two very clear reasons: (i) we sacrificed the anti-terror coalition that was put together in Afghanistan; the war represents a massive failure of diplomacy; and (ii) we don't have a clear, well understood exit strategy; in the absence of an exit strategy, there is no one but us to deal with Iraqi dissension and strife, so instead of leaving an Iraq with fundamental internal conflicts to work out (shi'ite, sunni, Kurdish), we leave an Iraq with both internal conflicts and external conflicts to work out.
There are military actions against terror that, despite collateral damage, will reduce terrorism. This particular one, however, was a mistake.
