Posted on 11/25/2008 10:47:09 AM PST by Jbny
Yeah, but that wouldn’t have been very responsible of us to do...what’s your current outlook? What’s wrong? What are we doing right? Sorry if that’s a loaded question, but I’ve seen some of your other posts and I think you’d have some valuable insight.
If victory is defined as keeping democracy alive, the odds are that Iraq will revert to form several years after we leave, if not immediately. The Sunni Arab party and dissident Shiite Arab factions in Iraq would be wise to agitate for the permanent stationing of American troops in Iraq as an honest broker, in case some Shiite Arab dictator-wannabe decides to make himself president-for-life. Obama has committed himself to a withdrawal in two years. Maliki seems - to me - to be angling for a president-for-life slot. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think Iraq will revert to dictatorship after we leave. Is that our problem? As long as Iraq doesn't start sponsoring anti-American terrorists, no. Saddam was a terror sponsor, but he was a minor leaguer. I don't think Maliki would be any worse.
The real pity would be this - after 4,000 dead and $600b in expenditures, we end up with an Iraqi president for life. If this is the end state, it would almost have been better if we had not invaded Iraq. I say almost, because capturing Saddam was a worthwhile objective. The question is whether he was worth the price we paid.
Thanks for the detailed post...I appreciate your insight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.