But it is a step away. Long-term stability is dependent on the stuff that is now being short-changed or eliminated. Agreed, in the best-case scenario, you need to buy time with security for the governmental and societal changes to take place. However, neglecting those changes while focusing on the security leads to a whirling, swirling vortex of doom (how's that phrase for empty rhetoric?). Seriously though, this is emblematic of a constant criticism levelled at this administration: They are consumed by tactics without understanding how the tactics fit the strategy (if they even have one). This article highlights that the rhetoric of the administration is not matched by its deeds. After all the repeated platitudes to Democracy, I don't see how anyone can defend this. Even if you believe the Democracy line and even if you believe the argument that history will vindicate the invasion, how much incompetence can you stand from this administration before you say "Hey, you've screwed this up enough and now it's time for something different." Put another way, regardless of your view on the war, can anyone seriously make the argument that the administration's handling of Iraq has been anything more than incompetent?
Man, that rocks. I may have to steal that . Actually I'm going to steal it right now. Oh. I don't think I've ever said the administration's handling of Iraq has been competant. If they hadn't disbanded the Iraqi Army I don't even think we'd being having these stability problems. If your point is that the administration is incompetant, then I wholeheartedly agree. However, that doesn't mean I believe the intervention is wrong or doomed.
