Originally posted by Crankyshank
I fo agree with crazyforgoofy's fears that we are less safe now, btw
I think you have your eyes on the wrong historical point. While I disagree with your assertion that we are less safe NOW, my assertion is that it isn't relevant.
What IS relevant is who is the most likely to get us to a point of safety the soonest. I claim that is Bush.
BTW - I think we are much safer now than we would be had we done nothing.
In order for someone to criticize what Bush HAS done, one should point out what they would have done DIFFERENTLY. Certainly, doing NOTHING would not have resulted in a safer NOW.
As for the assertion that we should have put all our resources into Afghanistan to find OBL, you may be correct - but you may be wrong with equal probability. This is like someone who says that the coach should have substituted the quarterback in the third quarter instead of waiting for the fouth. You just never know what the result of untaken actions may have been.
Now, I, for one, believe that the president - any president - uses the best advice that his military commanders give him and factors that in with his many other diplomatic and political calculations which he must resolve before taking action.
For one to assume that Bush actually gave up rational options to find OBL in order to pursue some vendetta against Saddam just goes against common sense. I do not consider anyone who holds this view as having the proper mindset to waste time with.
Therefore - just what would you have proposed as the proper way to pursue OBL? How would you have maintained the alliegance of the "warlords" who were still in control of most of Afghanistan at the time. How would you have secured the logistics that would have been required to support a larger presence? Where would you have obtained the "special forces" who were fluent in the local languages? How would you have pursuaded Mushareff (our great ally in Pakistan but was holding on to his power very precariously) to allow even more of our military to amass on his border? or travel through his land? (if we lose Mushariff, we lost Pakistan as an ally) How would you have responded to a threat from Iran - or Iraq with Saddam in control - to interfere with more troop movements in the area?
Suppose you do succeed in increasing our presence in Afghanistan - Then what do you do when Saddam increases his attacks on our flights in the No-Fly zone? How would you react to Saddams threat to "keep your troops in Afghanistan - or I will attack them with WMD if you try to remove them."? IF all our available resources are in Afghanistan, then we have NOTHING left to confront Saddams actions- regardless of what he threatens.
I could go on and on with "what-ifs" that may or may not have occurred. My point is that when decisions like the one you are complaining are "wrong" are made, there are MANY scenarios that have to be considered.
Me - I think that taking Saddams ability to play spoiler in the region out of the equation was the smartest thing that could have been done. It should have been done in the 90s. Waiting any longer only complicated any subsequent decisions. Now we don't have to worry about him.
ALSO - I think it is GREAT that the terrorists have descended on Iraq. It shows how much THEY think it is disaster for them if our efforts there succeed. If they thought this was the "wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place" they would be content to just let it be - they would concentrate else where. The very fact that the TERRORISTS think that their movement is doomed if we succeed in Iraq is the BEST evidence that it is the PROPER way to have attacked them.
Anyway - if you want to criticize the decision that was made - then propose exactly WHAT you would have done differently.
AND - the important time to think of being "safer" is several decades from now. If we have to walk through hell to make it safer for my great-grandchildren, then so be it.
Let's roll.
But .... I 'm a Tarheel from NC and am really hoping that your "duke" isn't Duke LOL LOL 
