Oh man, tell me about it. I am right with you on that. And if everything that's come to pass thus far weren't bad enough, the U.S. just raided an Iranian consulate in northern Iraqi today (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/world/middleeast/11cnd-raid.html?_r=1&ref=middleeast&oref=slogin), apparently taking five Iranians into custody. Or, in other words, violated Iranian territory. (I'm assuming here that consulates in Iraq possess extraterritoriality.) Defying all logic and sanity, Bush is following through on his threats toward Iran.
Yes, but against whom? When we sacrifice so many of what we hold as standards and ideals of America in order to spread the ideals of America, what are we working so hard to spread anymore?
Thank you. This is exactly what I was trying to get at last night. I honestly can't divine what Bush is after, but I'm less and less certain that he inhabits the same reality I do. At any rate, it sickens me that all the international goodwill that the U.S. had built up over decades has been squandered by this president in six short years. Even if I weren't disgusted by it for its own sake, as someone interested in an international career, his actions will complicate things for me considerably.
Agreed on your comment re: causality. I still believe it's valid here given that the object of warfare is to kill the greatest number of the enemy's troops as possible, and thus it makes sense to concentrate your efforts in the area where the majority of your enemy is situated. If the ratio of violence in Iraq:violence in Baghdad is correlated with the ratio of American forces in Iraq:American forces in Baghdad, I think it's safe to assume that that's what the insurgency is doing, and simply pumping more troops into Baghdad will not lessen that problem, which is what Bush seems to be assuming. It's also why I believe that attempts by U.S. forces to "secure" Baghdad won't be successful. And even if they are, it will by no means sound the death knell for the insurgency on the whole. I'm not sure I'm explaining this very intelligibly, so does that make any sense?
And by all means post a link on your lj. I'd be honored.
no subject
Yes, but against whom? When we sacrifice so many of what we hold as standards and ideals of America in order to spread the ideals of America, what are we working so hard to spread anymore?
Thank you. This is exactly what I was trying to get at last night. I honestly can't divine what Bush is after, but I'm less and less certain that he inhabits the same reality I do. At any rate, it sickens me that all the international goodwill that the U.S. had built up over decades has been squandered by this president in six short years. Even if I weren't disgusted by it for its own sake, as someone interested in an international career, his actions will complicate things for me considerably.
Agreed on your comment re: causality. I still believe it's valid here given that the object of warfare is to kill the greatest number of the enemy's troops as possible, and thus it makes sense to concentrate your efforts in the area where the majority of your enemy is situated. If the ratio of violence in Iraq:violence in Baghdad is correlated with the ratio of American forces in Iraq:American forces in Baghdad, I think it's safe to assume that that's what the insurgency is doing, and simply pumping more troops into Baghdad will not lessen that problem, which is what Bush seems to be assuming. It's also why I believe that attempts by U.S. forces to "secure" Baghdad won't be successful. And even if they are, it will by no means sound the death knell for the insurgency on the whole. I'm not sure I'm explaining this very intelligibly, so does that make any sense?
And by all means post a link on your lj. I'd be honored.