I agree. But use of force is not something to be entered into lightly, and certainly not without a clear end goals and objectives that are measurable and feasible. And, IMO, we never had that. And yes, hell yes, I blame Bush for that.Many did die and more will, but considering the length of the conflicts, and amount of troops that have rotated in and out of combat after all these years, the rate is suprisingly low particulary with respect to other conflicts that have persisted over years with high amount of ground forces present.
WTFE.Western "on demand" attitudes for results regarding complex situations is nothing but short-sighted greed and ignorance.
If the situation is that complex (and it is), perhaps we ought not have barged into it like a bull in a goddamned china shop.
I value our military service personnel, and always have. I do not feel that we should be using them without a clear blueprint/timeline for what they are to accomplish, and we never had that in Iraq. Or, for that matter, in Afghanistan. What we had were poorly defined missions, lofty and potentially unfeasible (some might call them pie-in-the-sky) goals, and improper preparation.
It had NOTHING to do with the hard work of our ground forces, and EVERYTHING to do with poor leadership in our commander in chief.
For the record, I'm even more critical of Clinton's actions in Somalia, so don't get your panties in a wad.
The older I get, the less inclined I am to support the idea of committing our forces overseas to fight other people's wars.
That's something I actually agree with Ron Paul on.
And no, I don't consider George W. Bush manly.