Here's How I Think George Bush Jr. Could've Handled Iraq Better

"Keep in mind this is the Middle East we're talking about. A place crawling with Islamic fanatics intent on destroying the influence of the "Infidels" and Western culture in their country. There's also another consideration to take in mind: These radicals don't stay in their own country. They go where the "Infidels" are. September 11th is a prime example. When I was in Iraq, more than half of the actual insurgents we picked up were not even native to Iraq. They came from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, etc,. . We establish a permanent military base near Iraq, and we're essentially inviting extremists to come into that host country and cause chaos in their neighborhood. Now we're fighting two battles. This strains our relationship with the host country. " Perhaps it could be a base in Iraq then, or maybe a naval base on an aircraft carrier. "As far as drone strikes go - We're talking about more potential civilian casualties. This, in turn, gets broadcast all over CNN for the rest of the world to see. The majority of Americans I've spoken to have a problem with drones, and are very skeptical concerning their uses and the potential for future abuse. I'm sure our host nation (whatever it may be) and neighboring countries of Iraq would have a similar problem and paranoia. " The US could strike at the terrorists when there are no civilians around. But if they're constantly surrounded by civilians, then it's pretty much a hostage situation, and it's the terrorists' faults for the civilian deaths, not the US's fault. But I agree that the American public stands very much opposed to this. "We did. They did. They weren't ready. Look who runs the country now. " I think I have to give you this one. "And concrete the opinion of the rest of the world regarding America. We go in, blow segments of the country to hell, then leave the responsibility of rebuilding, establishing a government, etc. , to the masses of the country. Or we hand it off to some other country, and say, "Hey, take over. " In other words, relinquish responsibility for our actions. As a service-member that idea simply eats at the core of who I am as a person, and what we're taught in the military concerning responsibility for actions. So when we "ended the war" in Iraq, it was no surprise to me that Al-Qaeda took over again. They weren't ready, and we dropped our responsibility too soon. I read somewhere that it takes 3 - 10 seconds to tell a lie, and then it takes 10 minutes to dissect the lie and make it explode. I think Government leadership might have learned something from that, and applied that logic to the time period needed to maintain stability in a place like Iraq, following the years when major combat operations were still being conducted. " As for the morality of this plan, if the Iraqi government grows strong enough to fend off terrorists, then it's probably another dictatorship. So it seems that no matter what you do the Muslim-Majority countries will end up with either a dictatorship or a theocracy. This isn't a region where secular democracies last long. Muslims seem to like theocracy, so it seems to me they'd be happy with Al-Qaeda in charge. Plus, the US stayed for almost 10 years and they're taking over the country anyway. Since both plans have the same outcome, we might as well select the plan that is more economical. "Incidentally, what country do you think would have taken over for us? " A European Coalition, China, or even another Middle Eastern Dictatorship. Iran would probably enjoy being able to occupy the nation that attacked them several decades ago. The main purpose of the war was to remove Hussein's WMDs, and the second the US toppled his government this goal was easily accomplished. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.