A major criticism of President Bush by Democrats was that he refused to listen to the State Department or even his dissenting generals when setting Iraq policy. While the Iraq War is cited as a major reason for the Republicans' ouster, it would be a mistake to assume that a unilateral withdrawal will necessarily serve American interests. We had a chance in 2003 to make the right choice - staying the hell out - but now that we've made the bed, we should probably at least get dressed before we get up.
Basically, if our "commanders in the field" are suggesting that we need to think carefully about our new Iraq policy, we should.
1 comment:
The generals are in their element when dealing with a war or insurgency; I'll grant them that. However, there are two areas that the generals aren't experts in: international politics (what Iraq's gov't wants) and reconstruction work.
If rebuilding Iraq means that we have to "lose" to the insurgency, then perhaps that's the right choice. I don't know the situation, but the generals shouldn't be considered the sole source of respected advice.
I'm torn; I want both a friendly Iraq (gov't) and a functioning Iraq. The first is in my self-interests, while the second is because I think we owe it to them to rebuild what we destroyed, at the least. I suppose my original point was that if we could only have one of the two, which would we choose?
e
Post a Comment