(Seems like we're at the end of one of those threads where we end up slapping each other around like punchdrunk fighters. I'm almost ready to give up in exhaustion; what about you?)
I didn't say we weren't doing anything in Afghanistan. I'm just wondering if we couldn't be doing more, based on reports that Al Qaeda and Taliban remnants seem to have free run of northwest Pakistan.
Nor did I advocate invading Pakistan. I clearly said that we might think about going into the northwest outlaw territories where we know the bad guys are hiding, and get them. In that we might even have the support of Pakistan, after a little arm-twisting.
[Dragging my weary ass one more time into the breach] I also never said that continuing a while longer containing Iraq would be without cost. The issue on the table is relative costs, tradeoffs between an immediate invasion of Iraq now versus putting the same resources into Afghanistan. Since we were already spending the resources on containing Iraq, those costs aren't part of the equation.
[hand cramping...head slumping...]
Current Events » in reply to re: Cost effectiveness
re: Cost effectiveness
The whole thread (31 posts)
- Christopher Hitchens again on Iraq
- Despite the short term Baathist revenge attacks, things are definitely improving in Iraq
- The last 4 paragraphs of the article you cited
- They have a lot of oil to sell.
- re: The last 4 paragraphs of the article you cited
- Well now that Iraq's oil wealth is no longer diverted to build opulent presidential palaces and filling up Baathist bank accounts...
- re: The last 4 paragraphs of the article you cited
- The last 4 paragraphs of the article you cited
- Despite the short term Baathist revenge attacks, things are definitely improving in Iraq
