Justin and Joel debate whether or not we’d be safer had foreign policy decisions over the last 5 years been different. Join us.
Foreign policy – would we be safer if…?
Previous post: National security or the fall of an empire?
Next post: John McCain’s strategy to disillusion us
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Iraq was a civil war in 06. The N.I.E. doesn’t reflect Justin’s assumption that staying in Iraq made us more safe. Our military is spread too thin. our military spending has contributed to our fiscal crisis and meanwhile Al Queda has been said to be stronger then ever, not in Iraq but in Pakistan/Afghanistan.
Justin’s making the argument that Bush made, if we don’t fight them there we’ll have to fight them here. How so? Do you not see that this is a criminal issue and not a military one. It’s like using a hatchet instead of a scalpel to remove the unwanted problem. U.S. Army is the wrong tool for the job. We need legal lawfull intellegience gathering and a competent administration that understands the political history of the Middle East.
This War was an excuse for a tranfser of wealth from citizen taxpayers to the M.I.C. The Republican war hero Esienhower said that every dollar we spend on war is a dollar we could have spent on education and to be weary of the influence the Military Industrial Complex has on our public policy and discourse.
About Liberalism vs. Realism I think you’re right about Bush throwing out the old play book and adopting an combo of the two. The problem is that both realism and liberalism are flawed but that’s another post.
Take care.