I tend to agree with most of what John_NorCal says. Part of the problem is our leadership appears to not have clearly defined to this day certain things that should have been defined before this war began. One is what it means to have "finished the job", and another is defining exactly who "the enemy" is. When you speak in vague generalities, it may sound good, but how do you achieve an end when you can't articulate what it is? One of the toughest things about the war in Iraq is that the soldier on the street can't tell the difference between our "enemies" and our allies. We had the same problem in Viet Nam. War is no longer as "simple" as lining up on a battlefield and shooting the red coats. There are times and situations when finesse is more effective than force and I think this is one of them.
Having said that, I also agree about "fininshing the job" in Afganistan - presumably to capture Bin Laden and substantially weaken Al Quaeda. (Completely eliminating them may be futile because how do you identify them? Undermining their credibility in the world could be more effective in the long run.)
I remember reading prior to the war began that there was no love lost between Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden. By removing Hussein, we created a vacuum in Iraq that attracted extremists from all over. We played right into their hands. To those disenfranchised, borderline potential fanatics around the world, our actions seemed to confirm the propaganda that Al Quaeda and others have been spewing about us. It made it easier for them to recruit. And the war, to the terrorists, has always been about ideology - not territory or politics. And we were attacked on 9/11 by Saudi Arabian members of Al Quaeda - not Iraq. The decision to go to war there was rushed and, on the surface, based on what later turned out to be bad information, from whatever source it came.
Immediately after 9/11, we had the sympathy of the free world. We were in a position to take the moral high ground, encouraging more hearts and minds to our side, making it harder for people to be convinced to follow the negative propaganda being used against us. If we had waged an ideological fight and narrowly focused our military might directly on those who attacked us, we would have many more allies willing to stand up for us, but that opportunity has been squandered and I feel we have been only weakened. The cost in lives and dollars has been extraordinary. I feel these assets - financial and human - could have been used much more effectively in other ways. Being a bully doesn't tend to win lots of friends!
In spite of my belief that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place, I have felt that we should be responsible for some of the mess that we have created there. However, I heard some encouraging information this morning on PBS's "Foreign Exchange with Fareed Zakaria". I've only seen that program a couple of times, but found it interesting, as he offers some different, in-depth perspectives, from around the world. In the piece I caught this morning, he said that there are encouraging signs from sources in Iraq that things wouldn't be as bad as previously thought if we withdraw from Iraq. Two of the four reasons he mentioned (the ones I remember  ) are that Al Qaeda in Iraq is being weakened, as Iraqis of all backgrounds are getting tired of the suicide bombings. And second, that the minority Iraqis(Shiites?) are being encouraged by American efforts to safeguard their rights, so they are less fearful and less likely to pursue civil war. Wish I could remember the rest, but it seemed to make sense. I hope he is right.
BTW, if you haven't already, check out the link below with an interview with Dick Cheney ten years ago talking about why we did the right thing back then by pulling out of Iraq when we did. He predicted then many of the problems that have occured with the current war. Too bad Bush Jr. didn't follow this advice...
http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/15/318212.aspx
|
