Postcards from Moronica
I'll let this one speak for itself:
There was a small news article about five hostages being traded for prisoners in Afghanistan. Yet it is a large piece of information about Mr. Bush's failure to be a proper leader.
When a government is forced to turn over prisoners for hostages, you get more hostages taken, to force the government to do more things it should not do. Thus, the Afghani government of Hamid Karzai set up by Mr. Bush after the invasion will be increasingly unable to govern.
The one good war Mr. Bush had to fight, Afghanistan, was shoved aside for his personal vengeance against leaders in Iraq. Had Mr. Bush, with the blessing of most countries after 9/11, spent only about half of the money and sent about half the troops to Afghanistan as he has sent to Iraq, Afghanistan would have been rebuilt and shown that democracy works in Islamic countries.
But he did not. We know Iraq is lost, but Mr. Bush won't admit it, leaving our boys to die there for his glory. Now it looks like his stubbornness to keep up pretenses in Iraq will lose Afghanistan, too.
1 comment:
It amazes me that certain people seem to have faith that the administration would have succeeded in Afghanistan where it has failed in Iraq. If Bush is so inept, wouldn't it be more logical to assume failure at both? For that matter, while Iraq certainly hasn't progressed as initially advertised, isn't failure a matter of how one measure's success? For the sake of argument, let's say 30 or so years from now we see a quasi democratic state that is relatively stable that allows us to maintain a few military facilities. Would this war then be viewed as having been a success?
Post a Comment