| Genuinely curious to see what Rantburgers might have to say about this one. |
| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: WoT | |
| Pro-war dead-enders and endless war | |
| 2016-04-10 | |
| |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #8 There wasn't one mention of American lives lost or crushed by these adventures, in the article or the responses. |
| Posted by: Sgt.D.T. 2016-04-10 19:23 |
| #7 I've noticed a tendency among the paleocons/alright/etc to conflate.the.initial Iraq.invasion, which I thought was.a.good.idea.before the occupation was.run by the likes.of.colon Bowell... And Libya, where obama took.revenge.on QaDaffy for.surrendering and making Stuxnet possible. Given what I know.about.the American Mandarins. Class.now, I think a credible.case.could.be.made.against the invasion of.Iraq, bug the same case could.be.made.against the invasion of.Sicily or.Normandy, or.convoys to Murmansk. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2016-04-10 14:36 |
| #6 One of the commenters at the link wrote It seems that obnly Pres. Bush understood what that meant when he said occupation in Iraq would be 100 years if neccessary. Allow me to be clear — that is the voice of a realist. So I get the contend, we left too soon, but the truth is none of them have made the hnest assessment made the previous Pres. – 100 years of neccessary. We only started to pull out of Germany in the 1990s, nearly half a century after we conquered the Nazis, and have not yet completed that pullout two decades later. Ditto Japan, I think, though I've not paid as much attention to the situation there. Without that multi-generation commitment, which the author refers to as dead enders -- incorrectly conflating those who supported the Iraq invasion with the Libya bombing, in my opinion -- the original overthrow has been transmuted into a different kind of evil. An evil we could deal with speedily, were our military freed to do so -- killing them all tends to be a persuasive argument for those on the sidelines. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2016-04-10 11:20 |
| #5 Oh. You mean Bill Kristol. |
| Posted by: ed in texas 2016-04-10 08:41 |
| #4 The problem with this article is the binary choices on which it's based. There are always so many decision points in any policy that all work together in unforeseen ways that it is impossible to know what is the right thing at any one time. You makes your choices and place your bets. Add in the corruption factor at home and abroad and there is little sense to be made. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2016-04-10 07:59 |
| #3 They still haven’t learned anything from the failures of previous interventions (because they don’t accept that they were failures), and so keep making many of the same mistakes of analysis and prescription that they made in the past. "Analysis and prescription" are little more than convenient covers for 'K Street' investments. If you can no longer manufacture anything else, you can always manufacture crisis and conflict. Ike did have it about right you know. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2016-04-10 07:42 |
| #2 You don't understand it, don't try to fix it. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2016-04-10 02:27 |
| #1 A conservative value is a stable world with some plausible lines of conduct. It would be hard to conduct war as we are so compromised, but thanks for thinking about us here on the line. |
| Posted by: newc 2016-04-10 00:53 |