Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtclub
I had a similar thought last night when I was watching live. If we are going to engage in this type of thing, this is exactly the way to do it.
|
Again, let's see what happens next.
I mean, it's great that a dictator can be removed with limited outside intervention, and certainly preferable to sending U.S. ground troops into a situation that they would be very unlikely to help.
But getting rid of the bad guy is only step one.
Quote:
|
The other thought I had, which surely will be unpopular here, is that none of this happens without Bush. The execution was terrible and his timing was way off, but I think this is the type of thing he envisioned happening.
|
I'm not sure I follow your thinking. Could you explain? Is it that you don't think using force to achieve regime change would have happened without Bush?
Clinton and Somalia/Bosnia/Kosovo, with their partnership with international allies/organizations and constrained military engagement seem like closer analogs to me. [ETA: Obviously, one of those was a complete and utter fiasco and another happened appallingly late.]
Or maybe you meant the Libyans (and others) would not have been inspired to revolt without the example of Iraq?
