Bob Woodward of Watergate fame made the statement that the Bush administration is not being candid about the number of attacks US forces are facing in Iraq. It’s not too hard to believe in light of how many other things we have discovered the government has mislead us about.
I would like someone to clearly define what victory in Iraq is. Like crime, it may never be totally eliminated. So is that a reasonable goal? We can’t stop crime in this country and remain a “free” society. There will probably always be some dissidents in Iraq (not to mention the entire Mid-East). And who says we have to totally rebuild the country and make it a prospering democratic society. Isn’t toppling the dictator and putting the majority in power enough?
How much of the fighting is caused by our presence? For some strange reason we have become the “bad guys” over there. The fight is no longer about the insurgency putting Saddam back in power. It’s about fighting the western infidals.
I thought the Al-Quida and the talaban were the enemy terrorist. I thought the war on terror was in the Afghanistan theater of war. Putting our resources there would make more sense if our goal is to caprure or kill Osama Bin Laden. So why do we let Iraq make more problems in addition to draining resources from more worthwile endevors.
I have long suspected one of the major motovations for staying the course there is to have a military presense in the region that is close to Iran.