- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Messages
- 6,762
- Reaction score
- 1,619
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
Yeah but back then nobody was willing to look at religion. And throughout the 90s such a thing was absolutely politically incorrect and even forbidden in intel reports (I've read their obvious avoidances). We like to think that religious crisis is only a Christian Middle Age thing. We subscribe to the recent history phenomena, which is that enemies only come from national guidons and uniformed mannerisms. We like to pretend that the white Western inspired self-righteous Geneva Convention laws must pertain to the entire world even though they had nothing to do to with its evolution. And whenthey don't..."how dare they."
We like to pretend that all issues have simple answers and when they do not, we behave as if they will solve themselves. None in Washington personify this ignorance more than Rumsfeld's "No-Plan" for Iraq in 2003 where democracy was supposed to spring forth on its own once Baghdad fell (he's the same idiot that was afraid of Iraq's tribal instability without Hussein in 1991).
So, MSgt, I have to ask you your opinion on Iraq and the actions and events of the US from 2002 through today. You have probably read my posting being in complete favor with going in (although I think WMD was hyped - I view it as a humanitarian intervention as the proper justification and spreading democracy from Iraq to the ME as the core objective), and that its objective of spreading democracy is taking root. Rumsfeld was an idiot ("there's no insurgency...", no counterinsurgency strategy), I appreciate we had to disband the Army to break Sunni power structure, thank God for counterinsurgency war planning at AEI with Gen. Keane and that Cheney bought it.
What do you think of what happened and what do you think of my claim that it met its objective and has been significant in spreading the meme of freedom, democracy and liberty across the Middle East?