War never is, Js. And that, everyone does know. and please try to remain honest by acknowledging that when we're talking about the areas of instability and insurgent/terrorist acts, we're actually only talking about a small area in all of Iraq, largely being the Suuni triangle. The Kurdish north, and pretty much all of the Shiite south have been largely stable, with very infrequent attacks, and have supported by overwhelming majorities, our efforts to bring democracy to their once oppressed Dictator-run nation
To an extent, but this is something I see many Americans taking far too much credit for. The Kurds are more stable because of the Kurds, who established their own rule even while Saddam was still in power. The Shi'ites were primarily the same, though violence has persisted there to more of an extent. I would be wary of confusing stability with desiring foreign forces in their territory as some seem to claim (and note I am not saying that you claim this).
So A) you concede it's largely just a small segment of Iraq vs the continued implication it's a far ranging civil war, and B) you haven't denied that indeed these majorities are pleased we took out Saddam and support our effort to bring about Democracy. Again, no one is advocating we stay there indefinately, the sooner we get out the better, which would likely be the same posotion of the majority of the Iraqi population, WHEN they're ready. And only THEY will know when they're ready.
Bush and his military folks failed to have several contingincy plans ready to impliment at a moment's notice, which includes the option of a significant increase in the amount of coalition forces, once it was determined how much greater the insurgency was determied to be. Thus allowing those insurgent & terrorist acts to fester, and boil over once some of the mosques and and recruiting centers were hit
Why?
Why? You asked where the "other side" was critical of the Post-Saddam military intervention. You'd have to ask the military and Bush why they weren't better prepared. Maybe Pooch, Bt, or Captstrickland if he takes a gander at this post. I could only speculate.
You give basic criticisms, and you are right, these are old hats. What I said is missing is analysis, not complaints, see the difference? I could care less whether it is left, right, or preferably non-political.
Then again I reference my above response. You need to ask for analysis of military intervention with someone who has experience in the area. Maybe Ami. But the point that you haven't seen criticism or negative commentary aimed at Bush's efforts post-Saddam from "all sides" hopefully have been put to rest
all that scares the living daylights out of Iran, Syria, and similar minded countries
I keep hearing this Sirs, but why?
Because a stable democratically run country, in the heart of militant Islam will divert much of their (Radical militants) resources, personel, training, arms, and bodies, from perpetuating and planning more global acts of terrorism, not to mention having to find even more new areas to train and organize. Both Iran & Syria will constantly have to look over their backs anytime they are desiring to launch terrorist sponsored attacks aimed at Israel, and Israeli friendly regimes. this kinda falls along the common sense line Js, so why you're asking "why" is a little puzzling, when you yourself have acknolweded their efforts to destabilize the area, fund and arm terrorists, with the possible hope of filling in the void, if such a democracy is defeated.
Thus far all indications are that Iran has wonderful relations with both the Prime Minister and President of Iraq. I have yet to see a reasoned explanation of why this bothers Iran? They appear to be the great winners in many ways.
Asked and answered. And let's hope they remain on "good relations" Let's make it even better by supporting Iraq in any way we can, that Iraq requests
