If not mistaken that expression applied to Hitler's Europe as it was fortified and defended against possible invasion. Which, naturally didn't help him.
Don't split hairs now. It's useless. I didn't say combat is going on but it isn't a war unless you simply apply the broadest definition to it. Which, if so, is in error. I call it what it is. When it was a war we established clear objectives. These were met. Major combat operations ended. It's not a "war" in the usual sense anymore. I contend America did win the "war" in Iraq. All objectives were met. One simply doesn't launch a war, win, then walk away. No, they stay behind, help rebuild, re-educate, provide security, keep things from falling apart. Which is what we now do there. Yes, we're being shot at and taking shots. But it isn't war as most define it. There are different types of military actions.
You simply don't get it Anna.
I said it is akin to a peace keeping force. We are on the side of the Iraqis. We liberated them from Saddam. And want them to have their own stable government. To that end we are trying to help keep it going. Our original war enemy, the Hussein regime is defeated. We no longer have a clear enemy in Iraq beyond Al Qaeda. The true enemy there is the Iraqis themselves who wish to not get along and move their nation ahead but rather carve it up. In some ways we are caught in their crossfire. But if we left we'd be leaving it worse than we found it.
Anna, I think you are being too black and white on this, focusing on a small picture instead of the whole picture. I'm looking at everything when I discuss such matters. So forgive me for being argumentative and annoying.
|
08-30-2008
Threaded Mode