Nobody could have predicted that the third-biggest armed force in the country would start using their “Gosh, if you continue to do things I don’t like I just might cease my cease fire card” to their advantage, either.
-Joe
Not that there haven’t been some regrets.
to insure that islamic fundamentalism will take over Iraq. We removed a secular dictator-and opened up iraq to sectarian violence. So why would we be surprised if some religious government emerges?
And ALL of this is EXACTLY what Al-Queda WANTED! :smack:
Al-Qaeda never wanted a Shi’ite government in Iraq or anywhere else.
But…but the Iranian Shi’ites and al-Qaeda love each other!
It’s true! John McCain said so, and he’s a straight talker, so it must be so!
I read an article in the Trib either today or yesterday reagarding the 5th anniversary of the US invasion. Some high-level member of the Iraqi government was commenting that it was necessary for US troops to remain in Iraq until the Iraqis could take over their own security. Of course, this begs the question as to when that magical moment might arrive. After all, it has already been five fricking years.
Arguing whether the Surge is improving things in Iraq is missing the point . . .
The more important question is “When can we expect things to be improved to the point we can leave?” (I’m not ruling out “never” as a possible answer.) I’d love to hear Sam Stone or any other supporter of the Surge give an answer to that question. Come on, what’s your best guess?
Follow up question: How many thousands of American soldiers do you expect will be dead by then, and how many trillions of dollars will we have spent?
Follow up to follow up: How in the hell can you possibly think it’s worth it?
They probably prefer it to a secular government. For that matter, I expect that the American fundies think that a Shi’ite fundamentalist state is better than the Ultimate Evil of secularism.
No, it does not.