Which is why when people say "only fight if there is no other other options" or "if there is no other viable option" are merely repeating a simple-minded cliche. What they are really saying is "only fight if there are no better options". Except that this is also ridiculous. When did anyone go to war with the argument "Of course there are a bunch of better paths we could take, I but we say let's have a war just for the hell of it - those tanks are going to rust if they don't get put to good use." So, what they really mean is not "we should fight no war unless there are no better options", which is a useless standard that ultimately means nothing, what they are really saying is "We shouldn't fight a war unless I think there are no better options". Which is in and of itself a not so much useless standard as it is an idiotic and ultimately suicidal one - pure democracy in which every single citizen exercises a complete veto over major foreign policy decisions? No thanks.
Agreed. Intelligence upon which major decisions are based should be as thorough and as rigorously tested as possible, time permitting.Sarcasm noted, but yes, let's check the intelligence before we go off on another Gulf of Tonkien incident war. You don't (shouldn't anyway) go to war lightly.
concurIf that's the objective, then let's be up front about it.
Sure. But hitting a ball requires follow through. Simply plucking a dude, saying "well, you're in charge now, don't forget to be a (d)emocrat and respect women and stuff like that!" isn't actually achieving the goal anything other than nominally. It's planning to fail.And when the objective has been met, let's go home.
See that earlier bit about regime replacement? US National policy since the Clinton era.Just what was the objective in Iraq, anyway?
Funny. I google "Vietnam War" and all sorts of hits come up. It looks like people got purple hearts for it, we authorized funds for it... there's even a war memorial for it.Then, why is it that the "police action" in Vietnam was never called a "war"?
In May of 2003, no less than 79% of Americans thought the war was Justified. You can't get 79% of Americans to agree that ice cream is delicious. It was authorized in a bi-partisan nature by both Houses of Congress and carried out by a (yes) duly elected Executive.The war in Iraq was at least called that, but there was no commitment on the part of the people of the United States to attack Iraq.