Do you want to try and turn back the hands of time, or do you want to deal with the situation as it exists today?
We are engaged in a war and we need a Commander in Chief that knows how to bring about a successful conclusion.
It is true that we can’t turn back the hands of time, but does that mean we should ignore the past when looking for wisdom in deciding a course of action in the future?
I’ll give you an example of what I mean. The Pentagon has just finished studying hundreds of thousands of documents seized from Iraq. The conclusion: There was no link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Queda.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88154003&ft=1&f=1001
However, since Hussein was dethroned, there is now a definite Al-Queda presence in Iraq .
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/26/alqaeda.book/index.html
On this simple basis, we can say that the invasion of Iraq has made things worse, not better. So supposing we could turn back the hands of time, it is easy to say that we should have chosen the lesser of two evils. We could have tolerated one big dragon, or let loose thousands of little dragons.
With things like this in mind, perhaps we have to redefine what can be considered a “successful” conclusion. Perhaps there is not a successful conclusion to Iraq in the way people are accustomed to thinking. Most people still believe in the “Stratego” concept of war. Capture the enemy’s flag, and then you go home.
What if instead you must define success as the lesser of two evils?
Choice 1-Withdraw from Iraq and watch things get bad.
Choice 2-Stay in Iraq and watch things get worse.