dunno if you skipped over that part or just selective reading :tongue: ...something seem seriously flawed with the strategy that has now stirred up homegrown groups here in western countries.
Not skipped at all. I'll answer it this way;
The attacks that Islamic fanatics are carrying out on the free world (Which includes Spain, remember that little train station thing?) would have continued, and grown in size and scope, whether we went into Iraq or not. Again, the long list of terror attacks, before 9/11, happened long before we went into the mideast militarily. Clearly the western world/culture was under attack by radical islamic militants long before Bush, long before Iraq, long before the War on Terror.
Naturally, as months and years go by, any terrorist organization both recruits more members, places sleeper operatives in strategic locations, and develops better technology and methods.
Even if we had never begun the War on Terror, it's naive to think Al Quaeda would have stayed status quo, and not looked into ways to pull off more attacks. Including, (and what should be obvious as a 'good strategy') recruiting and promoting sympathetic cells here in the west, like you just recently had in Canada.
My point is, you cannot blame the war on terror, for creating terror cells in the west. Not only is it naive to assume they wouldn't exist, but they were there long before the war on terror.
Do a little research on Deerborn, Michigan. Largest muslim population the the US. They're in the streets chanting praises for Hezbollah, and screaming for death to Isreal and the infidels (Me and you). This was going on long before the War on Terror started.
As for a flawed Iraq, I already admitted I'm both surprised and disappointed in my country that they're havng as much difficulty as they are. Was Iraq the wrong strategy? Who's to say? Certainly not you or I, who only know what we read from our favorite biased news sources and blogs. You're not a military strategist, and neither am I. And I'm sure there's a whole lot we don't know and are not being told about the long term goal.
I'm willing to bet Iraq was never the real goal. The US and the UK are not stupid. They've always known Iran and Syria are the real problem over there. And so now when you look at a map, between Afghanistan and Iraq, coalition forces have Iran surrounded. It's much easier to launch an air assault against Irans nuke facilities when you have an allied airport on each side of the enemy, yes?
Are things going well on the ground in either Iraq or Afghanistan? It's easy to say 'nope'. But just because it isn't easy, doesn't mean you pick up your ball and go home a quitter.
Quitting, which the dems want us to do, is to accept defeat. It means allowing Iran to exert even greater influence in the region, and to pursue it's nuclear death technology, it means letting Hezbollah continue it's reign of terror against Isreal, and it means allowing Al quaeda to have free reign in countries like Afghanistan to train and plot for more attacks against the west.
The Franklin D. Roosevelt (a democrat) mentality of "nothing less than unconditional surrender or annilihation of our enemy" is the only thing that will stop an enemy bent on your destruction based on religious fundamentals.
This isn't pretty. This isn't easy. It isn't going to be over quickly. But 'staying the course' has offered the west a higher degree of protection than if we did the alternative.
