If you could easily solve all the major problems in Iraq, would you? Or would you be too worried that a successful conclusion to Iraq would make future preemptive wars more likely? Particularly with all those extra troops which would still be in Iraq; and that nice long border right there to give them somewhere to go. What if I threw in free ice cream?
How about this: Say you could solve all the major problems in Iraq in a fairly shitty manner. Shitty enough that few would be willing to suggest that the Iraq Experience should be repeated. Not that you want anyone to suffer; but were this to be successful enough to be repeated, a lot more people will suffer.
Regrettably, it’s a fact of conservative crapiness that the better things go in Iraq, the more likely they’ll be to repeat it. We’re talking about people who are already pining for another war, with this one still going down the crapper. Just imagine how convincing they’ll be if this thing somehow turns around and ends up almost satisfactorily. They’ll be ecstatic!
Heck, that’s the standard they use for everything else, so I don’t see why they’d change anything now. As long as you can find a few positives, it’s perfectly acceptable to dismiss the rest as outliers, irrelevancies, or propaganda. Even if they have to invent it themselves. Needless to say, your solution would have to be pretty damn shitty to stop these people.
So which is it:
A successful Iraq?
A shitty Iraq?
The Iraq that George Bush is determined to give us?
And remember, the longer we go with the George Bush solution, the less likely these kind of fuck-up wars can ever happen. Good luck.