bluesman,
Quote:
Well, no surprise, but I disagree.
Getting The One Big Thang right is more important than the detail-work. Did you read Christopher Hitchens' article in Slate about how did we get everything so wrong? His answer: we didn't. We got the most important thing RIGHT.
I agree. And IF - IF - we end up winning in the end, it'll be proven fact, and NObody will be able to argue that we're worse off.
|
which is why i said- "not that i agree with this statement."
because with iraq being the way it is now, we can say that we have got the "one big thang right." with iraq being dominated by the shi'as, and even the old recalcitrant sunnis (for the moment) on the side, we can say that we've not only ended the reign of saddam, but also weakened al-qaeda in the process.
however, you yourself here say that the truth of this is based on an "if". what if iraq, despite our best efforts, goes down into full-fledged civil war? what if iraq, despite our best efforts, decides to ally with iran? for that matter, things could have been even worse- what if in the chaos after the invasion, sistani was assassinated, or if the sunnis had decided to stay recalcitrant even after the surge...
i'm not agreeing with letstalk here. i believe the invasion and the resulting benefits thereof
have been worth the costs of doing so. but it's been clear that poor planning has made the costs so much higher than it could/should have been, while none of us are sure yet how long the benefits of the invasion will last.
that's the basis of my belief of why i believe the "worth it" question is arguable and perhaps even reasonable, given the right arguments. as backers of the war, this is a question that we must answer convincingly- this is not some wild charge of a great bushitler oil-israel-military industrial complex conspiracy.