Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In your own posts, you bounce back and forth between treating Iraq as part of the war on terror and the opposite. Depending on the context, it makes sense to do this. There's no point in arguing about it in the abstract. I note only that the way in which you think Iraq is part of the War on Terror is not one that Bush has tried to use to sell the war to the American people. When he's talking about it, there are scary links between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
|
How so. I think I have been consistent that I think it is part of the WOT, but not like most argue. I am looking big picture. If we don't change the dynamic of the ME, we are screwed. I also by the "fight them over there" theory, but that is backfill. I don't think anyone anticipated the infusion of foreign fighters.
Quote:
|
I don't think we've done much for democracy. The company is a ruled by a hodgpodge of warlords and factions, with Hamid Karzai's authority basically limited to Kabul.
|
We are holding elections there next month. That is something in my book.
Quote:
|
At the start of your post, you were explaining that supporting democracy was an essential part of the war on terror. By the end, democracy is sacrificed in the war on terror. This strikes me as a fairly fitting summary of this administration's commitment to democracy. They mean well, and give it lip service, but it's not happening.
|
Supporting (or more precisely, creating) democracy in the ME is part of the war on terror. That is the long term strategy. Short term is more blocking and tackling. Now in a perfect world we could do both (i.e., slap down Russia and count on their support), but in the real world there are hard choices and I think they are making the right choice. I expect Condi will play a central roll in the back channel, given her background.
