Brishen forwarded the link to this article at the Guardian.
It’s an interesting read, and I agree with much with what is said within it. Interestingly, the arguments in this article seem to dovetail with what I suspect President Bartlett’s State of the Union speech will contain on the The West Wing, which as anyone who watches it knows, is so forcibly ‘different’ than America’s real-world White House it’s almost laughable.Art imitates journalistic drmeaing?
On the other hand, I’ve yet to hear many of the arguments in the article voiced by those from the Administration. And as one friend of mine asked, why not Burma? And as Brishen asks, I’d like to see some plans/dreams of how to proceed upon victory: what structure will be imposed on post-Saddam Iraq? The lack of this discussion worries me that Iraq will be dropped post-Saddam, with a token administrative & judicial force that will not be able to handle the fallout. Because certainly, years and billions of dollars will be required to create something meaningful and lastingly governmental in Iraq in the void left by the removal of Saddam Hussein