Yes “rushâ€, as in no time to drum up international support. No time to get the UN involved or NATO involved. No time to do it right.
We spent a very long time at the U.N.--losing a lot of military advantage in the process--trying to get a coalition together, until we realized that some nations were just fine with the status quo, and had no intention of helping.
If I had my way, there would be a major coalition in Iraq today, sharing the fighting and the costs. And the opposition would know that they are fighting against a good portion of the world. As it is, we are there and the best we can do is plod through it as best we can.
The opposition would simply take turns bombing Americans, Frenchmen, and U.N. personnel. In the context of defeating the enemy and rebuilding Iraq, what would really change if we had more nations in there? Or the U.N.? If you are simply looking to save (very little) money and distribute the casualties to non-Americans, you might have a case.
What I have really found fascinating are those who would have supported the invasion of Iraq and its associated casualties, damage, and aftereffects, if the invasion has been blessed by the United Nations. Suddenly all the issues that are moral and tactical liabilities because the U.S. and Britain are doing them, go away if the U.N. had done it.
Kind of like getting your Crusades army blessed by the Pope in the old days. Now it's okay to do whatever you want. It's funny, but some leftists seem to view the United Nations very similarly.
Current Events » in reply to re: Rush hipocracy
re: Rush?
The whole thread (42 posts)
- A Democratic congressman on Iraq
- The "ebnelsonization" of the HabitableZone
- If you "bum's rush" America into a war, then you can expect to take it on the chin.