WHAT IF WE HAD NOT GONE INTO IRAQ?

[shraby]

By Richard Reeves

WASHINGTON -- I have thought for a long time that communism would have collapsed in the 1970s rather than at the end of the 1980s if the United States had not chosen to go to war in Vietnam. We squandered years of moral, political, financial and military capital in jungles and rice paddies we could not name, much less "conquer" or "liberate."

Because of that, a couple of sentences in the current issue of The Atlantic Monthly seem etched in stone more than slapped on paper. James Fallows, the magazine's national editor, in an article titled "Bush's Lost Year," writes of spending the past two years with military, intelligence and diplomatic personnel at the "working level of America's anti-terrorism efforts." Most are Republicans, he says; many supported the decision to invade Iraq (news - web sites) in March 2003. Next he writes:

"I have sat through arguments among soldiers and scholars about whether the invasion of Iraq should be considered the worst strategic error in American history -- or only the worst since Vietnam. Many say things in Iraq will eventually look much better than they do now. But about the conduct and effect of the war in Iraq one view prevails: It has increased the threats America faces, and has reduced the military, financial and diplomatic tools with which we can respond."

Among the many people quoted in the Atlantic is Jeffrey Record, a professor of strategy at the Army War College, who summed up a good deal of the thinking in Washington now: "Are we better off in basic security than before we invaded Iraq? The answer is no. An unnecessary war has consumed American Army and other ground resources, to the point where we have nothing left in the cupboard for another contingency -- for instance, should the North Koreans decide that with the Americans completely absorbed in Iraq, now is the time to do something."

(more)
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ucrr/20040913/cm_ucrr/whatifwehadnotgoneintoiraq>

[stevebreeze]

1. Bush wins in a walk

spurred on by the success of reintroducing inspectors into Iraq without the loss of life a war would have caused.

[Cha]

2. Not necessarily!

But why speculate..we couldn't hold back the tide of LIES!

[FloridaPat]

8. e's the war president. People are going to jail if they oppose

him. THey are all unpatriotic. He would have nothing if he didn't go into Iraq. In fact, he probably wouldn't have the senate. In 2002, all the talk was about him invading Iraq and the DC sniper. He ruined a lot of senate Democrats careers by calling them traitors. These people are rough and creeps and willing to do anything to stay in power.

[Massacure]

3. I fail to see how the U.S.S.R. would have fallen faster without Vietnam.

Vietnam was never really much of a threat to us after we pulled out.

Iraq is a whole different ballpark.

[AlCzervik]

4. yup, Iraq really is a much bigger danger today than it was a couple of

years ago, and for that matter, so is the Bush adminstration.

[leesa]

5. Neither country Vietnam or Iraq was a threat to us. What are you talking

about?

[Massacure]

7. I said after we pulled out.

When we pulled out Vietnam wasn't a threat. However Iraq is a hell hole, and they will be a threat when we pullout unless things suddenly turn around.

[leesa]

6. There was no possibility Bush would not have gone into either Afghanistan

OR Iraq. Both had been planned for a long time.

[Morning Dew]

9. "WHAT IF WE HAD NOT GONE INTO IRAQ?"

Well, if you believe Chimp and Sneer, we'd be battling hordes of chemical bomb wielding al Queda troops in the streets of Anytown, USA.

There'd be mushroom clouds over all of our major cities. Osama would be sitting on a throne in the WH, lording it over his unwilling subjects, the Muricans.

Still, I'd be willing to bet that Halliburton would get the rebuilding contracts.