I can't shake the feeling that if we'd kept our eye on the ball in America and finished the job on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda instead of haring off to Iraq following some Neocon Will-o-the-wisp there wouldn't have been an attack on the British.
So much for the the latest of the Bush administration's ever-changing rationales for the war, "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them in our cities".
Note to Administration strategists:
we're not fighting the Cold War any longer.
This enemy can't be pinned down by tanks and battalions.
It's a different kind of war, please stop fighting it with tactics from 1968.
2 comments:
Good point Bax, however, will the bleeding hearts be able to tolerate the ROE necessary for this kind of world war and nearly invisible enemy?
hey Rich! =)
well, you'd have a long hike to find more of a Liberal Freedom Hating Bleeding Heart than me, and I'm all for stomping a mudhole in the ass of the Bin Laden & his nutjob pals....so Survey Says Yes. =D
What I don't like turning a country that had fuck all to do with 9/11 into a maelstrom of chaos and calling it a "war on terror".
As much of a shithole as Saddam-era Iraq was, looking at it from a global perspective it was secular, it was stable, and it was anti-terrorist, aside from the de riguer support for whatever anti-Isreal elements were in the neighborhood.
Now it's riddled with terrorists, it's nascent government is increasingly controlled by muslim extremists and there's no end in sight for our involvement.
in short, a clusterfuck.
Post a Comment