I definitely don't think doing nothing is a viable alternative. I just don't know if Iraq should have been our first stop. As I said, I would have taken much more drastic action with Afghanistan, but I'm not sure if that was really a viable action. Over dealing with Saddam, I would have prioritised:
1. Saudi Arabia. They may be an "ally", but they're the biggest financial supporter to terrorism in the world, and most of the 9/11 attackers came from this country.
2. Afghanistan/Pakistan border. I don't think I need to elaborate too much on this one. :wink:
3. North Korea. Not Islamic, but a big threat to nat'l security, IMO. They're desperate and crazy enough to actually do something dumb, and I wouldn't put it past them the hand Osama a bomb.
4. Iran. The IAEA needs complete access, period.
After that, I would take a look at what could be done in Iraq. Now that we're there, and are trying to build a new nation, we obviously can't just up and leave. I don't think even Edwards (who seems the most gung-ho about getting out fast) would really pull out all troops immediately. Obama is on reccord saying he would talk to the generals, and would not remove troops critical to fighting Al Quaeda in Iraq, even if he did move towards ending the occupation.
I know our men and women are doing an A+ job over there, and I'm confident they'll do whatever needs to be done. I'd just like to see a little more flexibility at the top, as far as strategic vision goes. I'd like to see more pressure put on the nascent Iraqi government to get a move on. Our guys are in the thick of it, and it'd be nice to see some more action from them in terms of moving the country forward.
Just my two pennies. It goes without saying, that I have nothing but admiration and respect for the members of our armed forces. I think they're doing a great job, and will continue to.
'08 Black Saphire/Black Z4 M Coupe
RIP Gretta: Blue Water/Lemon 135i. Died to save me.