I fail to understand why this concept is so hard to get one's head around. Like Steve Clemons says, taking issue with the Iraq conflict (and leaders who supported it)
"has nothing to do with being 'anti-war', it has everything to do with being 'anti-Iraq War' and trying to prevent the same kind of dangerous calculus from being followed in the future."
Seems pretty simple to me.
Maybe we ought to use smaller words to get the point across.
Sheesh. How many times does it need to be said?
3 comments:
A war leader says Iraq is key to the whole region:
Discussed here and here.
And who would that war leader be? None other than Osama. Who would know better than he does?
It became key to the whole region once the US invaded and ousted Saddam. It wasn't before. Opportunism by terrorists is a common affair.
Also, my beef with the Iraq War has to do with its initiation--I am against a rapid pull-out at this point because, as the links you provide point out, it has now become a central front. But then again, we made it one.
Better they expend their resources there than here. Tough on the Iraqi people. The consolation is that Saddam was tougher and now at least there is hope.
BTW I was never fooled by the WMD or other reasons. Iraq always looked like a good central location.
And we have the added bonus that Libya gave up its chemical and nuke programs after seeing Saddam's fate.
Post a Comment