Fascinating paper...
I was just thinking the other day...
Going into Iraq was surely going to result in one of two things:
1-WMDs would be found (or even worse, used)
or
2-They wouldn't be found, but we'd still take Sadaam down in the process.
Given that this is essentially a win-win scenario, Bush really didn't have anything to loose, except some lives of American troops, sent out to do all this.
Given the above, wouldn't it have been better to go in as a coalition?
A secretary of the DOD recently turned in her resignation, because she didn't agree with the direction taken about Iraq, and labelled the poor state of readiness of our troops out there as "a derelection of duty".
Is everyone but me just blind to all this?
She also stated that troops were sent in fewer numbers than what may have been required, because it was understood that the larger commitment, which would have been a massive deployment, would cause riots back home (like, it didn't?!?), so the activation was gradual, to appease the population.
The largest employer of the US is now the army.
I don't think anyone's going to argue that going into Iraq was a bad thing, just that it could have been done better.
|