Thursday, April 05, 2007

Even If Funded, It's Questionable As To If The Current Strategy Will Rectify The Iraq Conflagration

Billy Joel once sang, "we didn't start the fire..." and it seems a bit dated. But it's ringing in my head right now:
...Begin, Reagan, Palestine, Terror on the airline
Ayatollah's in Iran, Russians in Afghanistan

Wheel of Fortune, Sally Ride, heavy metal, suicide
Foreign debts, homeless Vets, AIDS, Crack, Bernie Goetz
Hypodermics on the shores, China's under martial law
Rock and Roller cola wars, I can't take it anymore...
Go figure.

But that's not the point of this post. I just have one question for the blogispher today given the news yesterday:
WASHINGTON - For just the second time since the war began, the Army is sending large units back to Iraq without giving them at least a year at home, defense officials said Monday. The move signaled how stretched the U.S. fighting force has become.
Let's get right to the point of this post. I call this...drum roll please...

Windspike's Sure Happy It's Thursday
Questions for the Blogisphere

  1. Even with the "surge," is the current W, Rove and Co strategy the right way to extinquish the Iraq Conflagration?

  2. If you were President, what would you do?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Leave only the military training units (training Iraqi's, I mean) in the country. Bring all the other unit's, and use $80B of already allocated war funding to create a new 'Marshall Plan' for the country.

Don't know if it would bring stability to the country, but it couldn't hurt.