Harry Boswell asks A question for the Bush supporters who may read this.
He really asked 3 questions but I didn’t charge him any more for my answers.
Q -Is there anything that bothers you about the way Bush has handled the Iraq war?
Nope- Not a gosh darn thing. In fact, I don’t even have a problem with the rebuilding effort.
Now before you call me insane, hear me out.
The war was textbook. In fact new textbook because the prosecution of the Iraq war was so incredible it will make them write new textbooks for the war collages.
As for the rebuilding effort, Saddam had let his country’s infrastructure rot far more than we expected. The whole “Baghdad still does not have electricity” meme was a farce. Baghdad didn’t have electricity before we got there either. In the end, Saddam’s raping of his country’s wealth did cost us more money than we anticipated but all in all, the war itself was cheaper than we guessed so things balance out.
Some argue we were caught by surprised at the “insurgents.” Democrats love to say, “They promised us there would be people with flowers in the streets” conveniently ignoring the fact there were people with flowers in the street. (literally, ironically enough)
Let me be more precise than the big media. The “insurgents” are not people who want Saddam back. The few loyalists Saddam had were gone long ago. What we have in Iraq today is radical Islamists who want to kill infidels. The “Iraq war” ended long ago. We won. The global war on terror however, continues.
Let’s be clear… What we have now in Iraq is people who are taking advantage of geography. They would kill you or me in the street tomorrow or hundreds of us with 747’s if we let them. They are not attacking because we ousted Saddam. They are attacking because they want you, me and the poor Marine over there dead. The Marine just happens to be in range.
The Islamists in Iraq have the added incentive that they want to spread Islamic rule over part of the country. But they thought that 9/11 would further that aim here. Probability of success rarely enters into the Islamic mind.
If we underestimated anything it was not the scope of the work. It was the over-powering, unrelenting, tenacious, fanatical zeal of Islamic extremists. (Kevin pays me by the adjective) In effect, we underestimated our enemy again. Just as we did after the first attack on the Trade Towers, the U.S.S. Cole, et al. It’s a simple mistake. The western mind does not understand their ingrained level of barbarism and brutality.
Should Bush have understood that placing that many U.S. soldiers in the middle of the same people who want us dead anyway would be a problem? Perhaps. But I don’t recall anyone else saying that would be an issue either.
(the bigger question) Should Bush be FAULTED for not foreseeing this? Let’s put it this way. Bush has a better understanding that the radical Islamists want us dead than anyone on the public stage with the possible exception of the “born again” Vladimir Putin. Bush is the one guy who understands and is willing to tell the world this is evil and these people do evil things. If even he underestimated them, rather than you and I second guessing his judgment, perhaps we should pay more attention to the size of the challenge we face.
Q -Has your attitude towards the Bush strategy changed at all since late 2002?
Nope, he wants to change the terrorists’ hearts and kill the ones who don’t want to be changed. I still support both causes in either order- just as long as one of them happens before they kill one of us.
Q -If it has, and you were running for a national office, how would you explain your changed position?
I might be a lot of things but John Kerry ain’t one of them.