I'm not trying to second guess the strategy being employed here, either on the civilian or military side. I simply don't know that much about the situation. But I'm getting frustrated about this "stay the course" attitude, which is fine, I agree with it, but we're not getting any indications of any policy, etc. likely to resolve the underlying issues I mentioned.
The situations you describe are different. In WWII, we needed to build up infrastructure, equipment, recruiting, etc. None of that needs to be done today. We have the weapons, the equipment, they're already deployed. And we're not increasing our presence in Iraq, we're starting to bring troops back. So the analogy doesn't really hold. We have the means to do it, just not the will. The only thing I can think of that's holding us back is that a widened war would spike oil prices so high it might bring down our economy.
Have you heard this? A man called C-span yesterday and asserted that in the time when we have lost 1800 soldiers in the Middle East war on terror 30,000 Americans have been murdered in America. To some extent, then, isn't the incessant attention to low war casualties a wag-the-dog dodge to avoid covering the dismal failure of liberal democratic policies in American cities?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson