> [Original Message] > From: Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx> > To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: 9/27/2005 3:48:27 PM > Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: some Hitchens to raise ire > > Andy: Bush never finished in Afghanistan because he turned to Iraq. > Afghanistan is therefore unfinished. He dropped his search for > OBL and turned to WMD. The time to have finished it is when we had > the momentum, the intiative. Not after we give them time to regroup > and scatter. > > ___ > > That's another argument for finishing in both Iraq and Afghanistan. > If we retreat (run away) from Iraq, it will encourage the Islamists, > insurgents, Iraqi mafia, etc. to fill in the power vacuum and advance. > Or it will bleed us dry, the way OBL did with the Soviets said he will to do with us. The Iraq war is a rock and a hard place. Can't leave, can't stay. Either way we lose. The best option is the one with the smallest losses. There are no gains. In the meantime, it's costing a lot of money and taking up a lot of military resources, and what are getting for it besides a good thrashing? If it was winnable, we would have won it by now. > That's one of the basic rules of war. When one's opponents retreat, > you advance and attack. If we leave, the consequences for Iraq will > be much worse than if we stay until the Iraqis can adequately defend > themselves. > It didn't apply when we pulled out of Vietnam. The irony is that there won't be peace until the occupiers pull out. I can't imagine that OBL is particularly bothered by what happens to the Iraqis, but Iraq is now a perfect training ground for his organization. > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html