I think it's quite possible that Iraq is simply a strategic blunder. I mean if the war went how a lot of us thought it would, I'd be all for it. Charge in and topple Saddam's government, free millions of people from tyrany, establish a middle-eastern ally, get the oil contracts to western allies, and George gets to go down in history as the president who brought freedom to the people of Iraq!

We're entering a new era with a new type of war, one where toppling a government doesn't mean winning a war any more. WW1 had poor strategic ideas like charging the German trenches over the plaines, just as wars were fought before the 20th century. I think the Iraq invasion once again had the military psyche stuck in the past, thinking all they had to do was smack down a government and the war is over. And once again, we've learned the hard way that tactics have to change.
Gandalf_The_Grey Reviewed by Gandalf_The_Grey on . Republicans Object To Stark Comments On War (The Politico) House Republicans objected today to comments made by outspoken liberal Democratic Rep. Pete Stark of California on the Iraq war during debate on the override of President Bush's veto of the children's health program. Speaking on the House floor, Stark said, "Under the Republican plan, by 2017, we probably will have killed 20,000 soldiers in Iraq, spending $200 billion." Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) rose to protest the remark and asked that Stark's words be taken down, a Rating: 5