(Article changed on June 2, 2013 at 09:41)
" The problem is that no matter how good your intentions, eventually you want to kill someone yourself."
Trick Question: What's the difference between Iraq today and Syria today?
Answer: They are only killing one another. And, frankly, that's the way it should be.
Oh, don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying that folks killing one another over religious/political disputes is a good thing, it's not. But it's a helluva lot better than throwing our young men and women into the fight so they can get killed too.
It would be one thing if we had to get involved, as we did in Europe during World War II. That one was a very real existential threat to virtually everything good W estern civilization had created to date.
Not so in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now, Syria. Armed intervention in those Middle Eastern countries is pure, unadulterated folly.
First of all, in each of those places, we lose no matter which side(s) win. The "leaders" we back, because they are the least of evils, are still guys you wouldn't trust to babysit your family pets, much less an entire country. I mean seriously , folks, how can you trust a guy (Karzi) who needs to be lubricated -- literally -- with weekly deliveries of bags of US dollars from our CIA? And whose brother is to Afghanistan what Al Capone was to Chicago!
Meanwhile in Iraq , Shiites are wasting no time getting even with Saddam Hussian's tribe, the Sunni, who ruled Iraq before we decided it was time for militarily forced change of "parties" there. The Shiites are in, and the Sunni are out. But, like most militarily forced "elections , " the losers are not amused and have decided to drop ballots in favor of bullets. We declared victory and left ... left the two sides to get back to the thousand-year religiously fueled extermination campaign against each other.