|
Of course if you flood a country with troops (which should've been done AT THE BEGINNING to help secure the country and protect its infrastructure after the collapse of Saddam's regime) and "buy off" some of your previous opponents, violence and casualties are inevitably going to go down. What the MSM and all of the (mis-)administration's "surge" supporters seem to repeatedly (and conveniently) forget to mention is that the political "benchmarks", specifically the political reconciliation, that the "surge" was supposed to help facilitate, has not been realized and, in fact, the (mis-)administration has even downgraded the importance thereof by quietly moving the goal posts for Iraq's government. It's freaky to see Iraq more or less "fade" into the void in terms of discussion and what's even worse is wondering if McCain is right in that we as a country don't really care about keeping troops stationed abroad in other countries as long as we are not taking casualties on a regular basis. While our limited military presence in Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc. is not analogous to our presence in Iraq, I'm worried that a lot of people might begin to regard it as such and the Iraq occupation could continue indefinitely. I would like to see somebody seriously challenge McCain about his boasts about being willing to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely as long as we are not taking casualties. In fact, I think that if he does win the nomination, it should be MANDATORY for our candidate to do so as I'm not sure that people, primarily the people serving in Iraq and their families, feel quite the same way.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
