If you break it, it's yours

[The_Rorschach]

"You said we would've received criticism for doing such a thing. I'm not addressing what YOU advocated, I'm addressing your assumption of the critics."

Quite, thanks for the explanation I was a bit confused. I think Burbank is on to something with his belief that the world at large doesn't object to the US interference in SE Asia and the ME so much as they object to Bush doing it. I try to assume the guy is actually quite intellegent, there is evidence to support it, but lately its hard to credit him that. Regardless, I think anything the US does internationally with him as President is going to recieve criticism from the Multi-Lateral other half. In order to impose any kind of coherent structure over the civil chaos reigning now, we would need a large military force, but that could so easily be misunderstood by the world at large - And I think they are eagre to misunderstand it at this point.

"Come on, I'd expect better. I was addressing our intentions in Afghanistan. Whether they were bad or not is irrelevant, since we had no problems dealing with these bastards, who oppressed their people before 9/11."


Afghanistan was important politically. I think Bush's aim was Iraq all around, but attacking Afghanistan served too purposes:

Cat's Claw: Diversionary tactic. Made his claims to a war on terror look legitimate. Anyone with even a hint of political understanding realizes that the war on terror can only be fought by intellegence agencies, like ONI, NSGD, the FBI, CIA and NSA with civilian support. As much as I hate quoting movies, and especially Bruce Willis, he said it best: The military is a broadsword, not a scaple. Afghanistan was a show, something to awe and amaze. If we had played our cards right, we could have come away from there looking like a hero, and probably even had world support for a strike against Iraq.

Foundation: By enjoying a successful campaign in Afghanistan, he would win more support at home for military actions because there would not be as great a fear that we would lose, or even lose badly. People are always more willing to engage in battles when they are assured of victory. Everyone will throw down on a safe bet.

He's successfully manipulated a large number of civilians here in the US into supporting him, and if not him, at least the potential fruits of war and, to his credit, he's done it with their encouragement. He would make a good Mr Wednesday or Lyesmith. ANyway, the point of all this is, we don't have any interest there, for good or for ill. What we've done to rebuild is a token gift of little or no real value. Not to defend Bush, but I think he realizes that he'll only catch hell from the international security if he offers anything more than money - a commoditary which we can;t afford at the moment (not that that has stopped the maniacal deficit-spending bastard in the past).