Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
I think the "think-tanks" saw/see very good strategic reasons for democratizing iraq and establishing a friendly Arab regime in the middle east. As selfish as those desires may be, THAT ISN'T NECESSARILY A BAD GOAL!
|
Sure, but we are not physically capable of "democratizing" a society - not using guys with assault weapons and artillery support. That's my opinion, anyway. I guess this whole ordeal has been an experiment to the effect of proving whether or not it can be done.
We didn't have a realistic goal going in if it was to "democratize Iraq and establish a friendly regime." Setting up our forces in Qatar was a realistic goal, and we did that (long before the Senate voted, I might add). Taking out Saddam's regime and imposing martial law was a realistic goal, and our troops did that. Handing a measure of control over to Iraqis was a realistic goal, and we've achieved that.
But you can't have democracy when there's an assault rifle pointed at you. At least, that's no kind of democracy I'd want any part of.
BTW, calling them "ambiguous think-tanks" makes me think that you think organizations like PNAC have no influence in Washington. Is that so? I think they have more influence than the DNC right now.
Threaded Mode
