McFire

In my opinion, we did most everything right with the "shock and awe" attack. Where we went wrong was when we stopped and just occupied. Once Saddam's government was ousted, we should have put in something along the lines of the post WWII Marshall Plan until the Iraqi's could get on their feet. In addition, rather than let the lawyers figure out ROE (Rules of Engagement) and sit around procrastinating, we should have done our best to seal the borders around Iraq. Rather than let the insurgents pour into the country, we should have made the border areas "No man's land", meaning that if you don't go through the proper checkpoints to enter the country, you will be shot. It may sound heartless, but terrorists should be routed out and eliminated and those who harbor them jailed. The insurgents are neither Iraqi citizens nor uniformed members of a nation's armed forces, therefore Geneva convention laws really don't apply. Eliminate them. The longer we wait, the more sophisticated the terrorists/insurgents become (IEDs), and their supporters become even more bold with their aid (Iran for example). Things will not improve until the Iraqi citizens feel safe. If they don't feel safe, the more sectarian they will become. The longer it takes, the more difficult things will become; Sunnis vs Shiites vs Kurds. Sorry for the rant. Things started well, but the follow-through just hasn't worked out, mostly (in my opinion) because we went soft and slackened in our resolve. We needed to follow "shock and awe" with "swift and decisive", rather than sit on our laurels, watch the results and then procrastinate and worry about being politically correct. The whole point of the "War on Terrorism" is to take the fight to the terrorists and eliminate them so they no longer pose a threat to any nation.

Mac

__________________
McFire