Roger Long wrote:

The terrorists have to be stopped at the source which is overseas.

So, if I understand you correctly, you'd rather fight the bad guys in
somebody else's yard.

Unless we are prepared to simply take over every nation on earth
militarily, we have to have the help and earnest cooperation of
almost all of them.

This isn't necessarily true. It would certainly be good to have more
nations helping us, but taking over "every nation on earth militarily" isn't
necessary, either.

...we have
made ourselves far less safe than we were before 9/11.

Can you demonstrate this assertion? Can you provide any specifics on
exactly how we're less safe?

whining snipped

The problem with Iraq is not that we did it but how. I believe that
we did far, far too little. If it was Chicago, we should have gotten
the IFR currency restored first and fixed the TC. Sadam wasn't going
anywhere. Our election cycle was the only urgency.

hmmm... So the only reason you see for deposing the government you say
"needed to go" was re-electing the US President. Interesting.

Just look at the numbers of the troop deployment situation, the
reserve extensions, and the situation on the ground. The scale of
what needed to be done demanded full participation from a much larger
group of nations.

Wrong. It's obvious that the military did exactly the job it was supposed
to do with far fewer troops than many people said were necessary. Remember,
the job of the military is to fight and win battles, not build nations.
Further, reserve and national guard units are part of the military and exist
for just this type of situation - providing additional manpower for
relatively short durations.

With that said, it's apparent to me that some of the underlying assumptions
made while planning the post-war period were either flat-out wrong or
otherwise faulty. For instance, information I've gotten from troops and
others who've been to Iraq noted that early on in the occupation, many
"average" Iraqis are grateful for the coalition presence, but were fearful
of helping due to the threat of retaliation. I think post-war planners were
expecting greater assistance from Iraqis earlier than they got it.

Is that the fault of the military? No. Should more troops have been sent
to the occupation to address this and other shortcomings? Maybe. It's easy
to call the plays on Monday night, though.

The PIC who headed NORDO off into the fog of war because of his
personal agenda (getting re-elected and appearing resolute), has
gotten us in a real pickle.

Again, you imply that the only reason for invading Iraq was to re-elect the
US President. Do you have anything to back this up?

Remember: Almost all friendly intelligence agencies - and many
not-so-friendly ones - were saying that Saddam was trying to build weapons
nobody wanted him to have. If all your friends are telling you that the
bully across the playground is building a gun to shoot you and everything
you can see with your own eyes fits that description, just how long are you
going to wait until you do something about it? Or are you the type to wait
until you get shot before you act?

I'd vote for a yellow dog just for the fresh start that will give us
a chance to rebuild the alliances we need.

"Anybody but [the incumbent]." That's just the kind of critical thinking I
like to hear from the voting public (regardless of position under
discussion). What about other issues? Or are you a simple single-issue
voter?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________