Tennwriter:
No, we’re not a theocracy, but it used to be that we believed in self determination rather than imposing our form of government on every country that we think needs to be improved.
Even Central Command nominee Admiral William Fallon said today, “I think that we would probably be wise to temper our expectations here, that the likelihood that Iraq is suddenly going to turn into something that looks close to what we enjoy here in this country is going to be a long time coming.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013000099.html
So, the “new” leader, of our “new” strategy, has lowered expectations. Just as the colonists claimed that the countries that they colonized could not govern themselves, we will do the same to justify our presence in Iraq.
The problem with Iraq is that we went in as a liberating army (we were prepared for that role), and then we were forced to become an occupying army (we weren’t prepared for that role). Occupying armies are NEVER successful unless the occupied want them to be there, like NATO during the Cold War.
Even the most successful occupiers in recent history, the Red Army, the Nazis, and the Japanese, failed to impose their will once they left. And they were all hated by everyone, except for their lackeys who depended on them for power, for simply being where they weren’t wanted.
People in Tenn. should especially understand this last point if they know anything about the Civil War and Reconstruction.
Lastly, the neocons are screaming that the Democrats want us to lose. Explain please, why, with four years with a rubber-stamping Republican Congress, the President has failed to achieve victory? When, during that time, he could have gotten anything he thought he needed or wanted to “win” this war?
