Quote:
Originally posted by cool_chick
Rick, my response was to this statement:
And there hasn't been support in Iraq since day one. And there is support for Afghanistan. The reasons are based on the quote above, and the proof is comparing Iraq with Afghanistan.
And Afghanistan is far from being straightened out....sadly we diverted our attention from there.....
And I don't agree with you......if the insurgency had taken place in Afghanistan, you can take it to the bank that America would've been behind this admin all the way (provided they act accordingly by sending more troops, which is also another criticism factor here....not being effective at the job.....
Think about it...WHY does it have to take years and years and years? We have the #1 army in the world......so WHY does it need to take so long? The truth of the matter is, if executed correctly at the beginning, there would've been little insurgency today. The reason the insurgency became so strong is because they were left unchecked for a year or more (was that Fallujah where the movement started????) We took over that city (I'm thinking it was Fallujah....), then abandoned it, then took over again, then abandoned again..... His own father described the scenario playing out today in a book back in 1996....it's not like it should've been a surprise to his son.....
|
I'm not always in total agreement with you, but I think you nailed it completely. Afganistan would've had huge support if we stayed focused there. Iraq was a diversion to satisfy B2's vision before ever taking office. It never made sense, though it's nice that Saddam is out. We have yet to see what's the result of his ouster.