See, I'm getting stuck on the difference between what I view as a vested interest and strategically important. I would say that we may have had a vested
interest in the region, but without a clear strategy, we can't accurately say there was strategic importance.
Here's where I'll finally explain more about current strategic importance versus prior strategic importance.
In truth you might be surprised that I agree with you that seeing the combat troops leaving while the position is precarious is not something I wish to see, given my stances listed before in this thread.
While I don't agree with the initial
strategic importance of Iraq prior
to the invasion, I must
concede that it has become of vital
strategic importance to the American people to try and make sure that the best opportunity for the envisioned goals prior to invasion comes to fruition.
This is because I believe the alternative scenario is definitely
going to be bad for the American People.
I think the initial invasion left us with the options of "potential detriment to the American People" and "definite detriment to the American People"
That's why I didn't support an all-out withdrawal from Iraq. I think once we went in, though, we became "pot committed". Too much is at stake to fold.
In essence, I'm forced to compromise my misgivings with the initial invasion because I have even greater
misgivings about ditching the effort entirely.
Like I said, my hope is that I'm wrong regarding my misgivings about the initial invasion. The best chance
for me to be
wrong is if we make sure the job gets done as much as possible.