|
If the success or failure of this war depends upon whether some of us stand on street corners holding pieces of cardboard, then maybe it is something Rumsfeld and his buddies should have given serious thought to not doing in the first place.
Its success and failure should depend, as Bush et al are so fond of saying, on the calibre of our warriors. Since it obviously does not depend upon that, since it obviously does not depend on how good a job they do, IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN DONE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
The reason the success or failure of this war does not depend upon how good a job our troops do is because Al Qaeda et al are "forever", and we aren't. We can spend ALL of the money Bush wants, Give it ALL of the time he wants, Send ALL of the troops we will ever have, and we will still come to a point where we will declare ourselves "finished" with all of it, and Al Qaeda will STILL be there. They are forever and we aren't.
Even if we were "forever", what purpose does it serve to engage in an Un-ending War? It has to "succeed" at some point, at which point we declare it over and go home, and Al Qaeda is still there, it keeps on keeping on. It doesn't matter how good our troops are.
The only real solution is genocide. Is that what Bush proposes?
|