I was out last evening with a bunch of the spouse's old work buddies and we got to talking about the whole situation in Iraq. One person had an interesting suggestion, "If the Iraqi's want Civil War, why should we stop them? Let's declare victory, pull out the troops and let them have at it."
Now, given that we, US Taxpayers, have sponsored a fair amount of the devastation in the country, I think we are responsible for some of the clean up. But, then again, if they want Civil War, and it seems inevitable no matter when we get out troops out of harms way, then why not get our GIs home sooner rather than later.
In another striking thought, this person said, "Yeah, it's like we are giving the terrorists lots of practice bombing the crap out of the world's best military. That can't be good since they are getting better at it, not worse." Again, another case for bringing the troops home.
Well, we had our Civil War and our Country came out stronger and better for it (unless of course you ask some folks who still fly the rebel flag). Perhaps a Civil War might be good for Iraq. Not to mention safer for our troops.
But then again, maybe the war is more than just about "spreading freedom," and the capitalistic claws of Halliburton really don't want to relinquish the dollars that come with the clean up projects and oil revenue.
I wonder, how much do the American Taxpayers shell out to protect Halliburton contractors who are doing their jobs at 10 times the expense of the GIs. If this is what "spreading freedom," looks like, I am not so sure I want any more to do with it.