Obviously not. For instance, establishing a deterent by retaliating against terrorist attacks with nuclear weapons, killing millions of muslims each time would be more effective. I don't think many sane people want to do that, though.
Political decisions are based on a variety of factors, including what is emotionally 'acceptable' as well as what is practical or what is effective. The Iraq War managed to be 'acceptable' when it was aproved by Congress, and it is now impractical to withdraw, even though it's no longer seen the same way. It was never likely to be effective at improving security in the US, at least not beyond drawing potential terrorists to kill American soldiers in Iraq instead of American civilians in the US - which, if you're being entirely pragmatic, might not even be a good trade, even if you were confident it was working that way.
2007-05-09 10:07:16
·
answer #1
·
answered by B.Kevorkian 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Of course not - fighting & using our resources in Iraq will mean there is no one here to fight the cells that are popping up here and in the other parts of the world - Bin Laden must be grinning ear to ear at this policy.
The military is stretched to capacity - we need a new . stradegy to fight them globaly, and reinstate the duties of the National guard to service only in our country.
2007-05-09 17:17:35
·
answer #2
·
answered by geosworld 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
The military is designed for 2 purposes....
1. Kill people
2. Break things
Our boys are doing their job. Unless you don't like the ability to move freely without fear, then yes, they are being well utilized.
Your freedom comes with a price tag. If you are not willing to pay that price, then don't attack those who fight in your stead.
I spent 10 years as a Recon Marine. I fought in numerous conflicts to protect the freedoms that people in this country take for granted.
Semper Fi
God Speed my brothers
2007-05-09 17:02:23
·
answer #3
·
answered by Bill in Kansas 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Certainly: a portion of them could be used to secure our borders. Right now, all they are doing is creating many, many more people who hate America.
MBush (above): ummm... by your definition, then, Clinton was better at securing America, as 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. You have no logic in your answer...
Sadly, you remind me of Dick Morris.
2007-05-09 17:01:36
·
answer #4
·
answered by Blackacre 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Nope, I think that 90% of terrorist attacks are happening in Iraq. Sounds like a great place to keep us safe here at home. How can you not agree. How many more times have we been attacked here at home since 9/11.
2007-05-09 17:00:42
·
answer #5
·
answered by mbush40 6
·
0⤊
3⤋
No, we can use the military to forcibly deport libs to...to...hmm, is there any place that will accept them?
2007-05-09 17:08:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by Lavrenti Beria 6
·
0⤊
1⤋