Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
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.
|
Sometimes you are drawing a distinction between the two and sometimes the one is part of the other.
Look, there's no question that Iraq is going to have a huge effect on the so-called war on terror. That's not looking like a good thing.
Quote:
|
We are holding elections there next month. That is something in my book.
|
The accounts I've see suggest that those elections will leave the country far short of anything that could fairly be called "democracy." But it's important to the Bush folks that we hold the elections before November, odd as that may seem.
For someone who is so offended when Kerry appears to introduce politics into his policy statements, you are incredibly resistant to the notion that the Bush folks subordinate foreign policy to their political needs. And yet that is exactly what seems to be happening with the Afghan elections.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Just so long as you understand that the sacrifices we make in our Russia policy are one more set of costs of invading Iraq.
Threaded Mode