Amen! Let's get out as expeditiously and quickly as possible. Declare the recent elections as a sign of victory and go home. Iraqis might be ready for Jeffersonian democracy in another 700 years, but don't bet on it.
Not to much strategic thought to this editorial. The US will most likely keep a foot in Iraq until we can "fix" things with Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.
We are still in Europe and Asia and that was over 50 years ago. Your grandchildren will be in SWA unless we're all dead.
Gee, I thought I was reading a Scott Ritter piece. What were this guy's predictions before the "Surge" and Gen Preteous changed tactics? Of course he may be right. Anyone predicting dire future for a central, western leaning, Iraqi government, is hardly venturing into deep water in fortune telling. "Trying" for a good outcome by abandoning all efforts, is hardly Churchillian (Summer of 1940 version).
Like it or not, Lind has a good handle on the historical relevance associated with our adventures in the Middle-East. Historical evidence that was totally ignored by the old Bush regime and their bunch of 'The Best and the Brightest.' Why people continue to see, think or believe America can effectively change the beliefs rooted in history and religion of the area is beyond comprehension. It is all an illusion, a house of cards much like our economic system was prior to it all crashing down around our heads.
We have deviated far from the path our Founders began when our government was conceived and initiated. And as long as we keep up the deviation, America will be faced with a constant series of crises' that will eventually destroy America. Maybe if we had more people who thought along the lines of Lind within our government, we may be able to return to the straight and narrow path our Founders envisioned. There are some things where I do not agree with Lind and his perspectives or opinions but in the area of war, he has a much better understanding of what we should and should not be doing in this area. America is not, and was never meant to be some monolithic world power dictating to other countries what they should and should not be doing. If we are forced to defend ourselves, the origin and area of the threat should be obliterated...the concept of limited war is another fallacy foisted upon our Nation by ignorance and a total disregard for the history of warfare. Until we rid ourselves of those who believe and adhere to such foolishness, we will continue to weaken our national defenses until it is too late and the damage so great we may not be capable of rebuilding it.
Our founding fathers also didn't have to deal with globalism, energy independence, precision engagement weapons, or even nanotechnology that drives the future.
Their main worries were tactical suvival while the world today is stategically thinking into the next century already. Hunger and pandemics in Africa didn't affect America for our founders, but it sure does now.
Everything is relevant. When the Spanish Armada sailed, there were those who speculated upon the possible damage of so many cannons being fired at the same time. Though they didn't understand the theory of chain reactions, the thought process present at the time was the Earth could possibly destroyed, shatter into pieces.
When our Founders speculated, thought of and rationalized the possibility of a new Nation being established so different from what existed at the time tnroughout the world, or had ever existed in human history, they nonetheless at times felt such a proposition was pure fantasy and possibly an impossibility. They still went ahead despite all that surrounded them and the possibility of failure. It is no less the same today. We are faced with challenges that will be met by those willing to face them and move forward in the hope of a better future. Change is one of the most difficult concepts for a huiman to confront. Most would prefer remaining static or attempt to live in the past...historically a recipe for guaranteed failure.
S/F Gordon
Posted Sun 22 February 2009 12:11 PM Our founding fathers also didn't have to deal with globalism, energy independence, precision engagement weapons, or even nanotechnology that drives the future.
Their main worries were tactical suvival while the world today is stategically thinking into the next century already. Hunger and pandemics in Africa didn't affect America for our founders, but it sure does now.
