And you're confusing foreign policy with military policy. The article made reference to a reckless foreign policy, not to military rules of engagement. It's possible to have a very reckless foreign policy and restrained military rules of engagement and vice versa.
And what I mean with respect to Kristol is that he was typically not critical of having the rules of engagement that restrained US forces from absolute victory remain in place.
We won "absolute victory" over Saddam Hussein.
We broke his state and pulled him out of his hiding hole and put him to death.
But years later we were still fighting in Iraq.
That convinced many people that we weren't omnipotent and couldn't force other countries to transform themselves.
But apparently it didn't convince everybody.
The idea that if we could just bring more force to bear we could have achieved the transformation Bush, Cheney, and Kristol wanted for the Middle East is a dangerous illusion.
Have a nice day.
Likewise. Say "Hi" to Bill Kristol for me.
Actually, the Dems insisted on accepting help from Iran when it came to Iraq, and of course those “democratic elections” that guaranteed the pro-Iranian Shi’ites taking power in the region, giving Iran a land bridge to the Mediterranean. Here, foreign policy and military policy coincided to the USA’s detriment.
Remember Obama’s opposition to the military surge (his being proven wrong on its effectiveness embarrassed him to no end), and his hurried exit from Iraq? Conflation of foreign and military policy once again; what with the POTUS being CIC, such a thing becomes unavoidable.