I don't want to speak for the good doctor, but "they can build their country better than we can" is a good answer. Reagan's answer "Government isn't the solution, it's the problem" is even more applicable to the situation in Iraq is a pretty good answer too. "Nothing could be worse than the status quo, and even if it is, we could reestablish the status quo pretty quickly" is a good answer. "Because as long as AQI isn't there, no one will attacks us from Iraq," is a pretty good answer too.
To be succinct, the suggestion is that this equation is incorrect. Nation building is incredibly expensive; failed states aren't automatically a threat. (I guess Steve's example is that staying in Iraq proved to be far more expensive than leaving Somalia, even when you consider all the downsides we received from leaving Somalia, and there were undoubtedly some.) Reagan leaving Lebanon would be another example. Though, of course, I'd be very interested in the opinion of anyone who thought they could prove that your equation is correct. We don't want to spend more blood and treasure than we need to.
To be succinct, the suggestion is that this equation is incorrect. Failed states aren't automatically a threat. Though, of course, I'd be every interested in anyone who thought they could prove that you equation is correct. We don't want to spend more blood and treasure than we need to.
With due respect, that's not the issue. The original invasion costs are "sunk." The question is whether re invading is cheaper than staying.
Agreed, but extremists do have a tendency to cling to them.
Bookmarks