To listen to John McCain talk about “winning the war” in Iraq, you’d think it’s 1945. Iraq isn’t a “war” and it never was. It was an unprovoked invasion. Now it’s an occupation. And the Iraqis have had enough of it.
Saddam Hussein was a blustering bully, but he was no danger to us when we attacked his country. He had no viable weapons of mass destruction, no ties to al-Qaeda, and nothing to do with 9/11.
In cat parlance, the U.S. subjected Iraq to “misdirected aggression.” Enraged over 9/11, we pounced on the easiest target – an unsuspecting bystander.
Our “enemy” in Iraq didn’t materialize until after we were there. Insurgents arose to kick us out, and outside terrorists joined them just to waste our money and resources – because we made it easy for them to do.
Now McCain is saying, “The fact is, if we had done what Sen. Obama wanted to do, we would have lost.”
Lost WHAT??!! Obama never wanted to go to war. There would have been nothing to lose. We’d even have about an extra trillion dollars to spend fixing our own problems.
McCain doesn’t realize that there’s no “winning” in Iraq because there’s no one to vanquish. Saddam’s dead. Once we leave, the people can go back to squabbling with each other and the terrorists will scatter.
Republicans’ claim that “losing is not an option” is ridiculous, even to a cat. Losing wouldn’t have been an option if they hadn’t attacked Iraq in the first place.
The last thing we need is a president who embraces misdirected aggression as foreign policy and sees “winners” and “losers” in touchy situations where cooperation – not competition – is what’s needed.