Mike, at The Questionable Authority, has a
href="http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2006/07/nation_building_versus_nation.php">valuable
perspective on what
I wrote earlier, in
href="http://scienceblogs.com/corpuscallosum/2006/07/first_do_no_harm_part_ii.php">First,
Do No Harm, Part II. He corrects some of my sloppy
thinking on the matter, plus, he knows more about the subject than I
do. I replied that, even though he has more direct
information than I do, I still think I am right.
The question is whether we should stay, or get out, of Iraq and
Afghanistan. I am not claiming to know what we should do, but
I am putting forth my opinion anyway. I'd be curious to hear
what a neutral third party has to say about the exchange. Not
that it would settle the matter, but I am sure that there are others
out there with more direct information that could help us figure out
which is the correct perspective.
If you stay then you're going to lose more troops but, given sufficient resources, you might just be able to make something of these nations.
If you leave then everyone who was willing to stick their head above the parapet - the liberals, the women's rights groups, the members of other religions - are all dead. Period.
Personally, I'd recommend option A. You may be messing your armed forces and economy about, but that's nothing compared to the permanent hit your reputation will take if you walk. Not to mention the fact that all those insurgents in Iraq will have to find a new target...