Even though it should be obvious when you invade in a soverign country.
Yes it should be obvious, so my question is how did you miss it so easily? The only conclusion I can come to is that you are cheering for a silver
bullet to justify your opinion on why Iraq was a bad decision, and being personally justified trumps the common sense rational regarding what is at
stake today in Iraq, regardless of you being right or wrong.
I was against going into Iraq too, but I am now equally against pulling out. Rational people don't fix stupid decisions with stupid decisions.
In 1945, right after America successfully invaded Okinawa, the entire Japanese population was mobilized into a militia to fight the Americans and die
for their country. By taking out Japan across the entire Pacific, America had created an enormous problem for itself because instead of facing only a
couple of million Japanese fighters, a large many of which had been killed or captured by 1945, now America and Britain would have to deal with tens
of millions Japanese fighters on Japanese soil.
The trend that a war abroad creates more rebellion is historically accurate, but history shows this development isn't shocking or even a terribly bad
Your logic is flawed. Of coarse there are more terrorists now, just like in 1945 when the Japanese cared more about their homeland than they did
islands conquored in conquest, the Jihadists in the middle east care more about the Middle East than they do Europe or America. Iraq has become a
honeypot, and honey attracts more flies.
If we follow the logic that Iraq is creating more terrorists, and this is a significantly terrible thing, then the same logic applied in history would
say beating back Japan was a terrible thing, since success then had the exact same effect. Historically speaking, the result of increased
reinforcements by one side engaged in military operations is often a reflection of success by the other side, although I have no doubt anyone opposed
to the war would want to draw that obvious conclusion.
To say this development is shocking, aweful, unexpected, or harmful is to say perhaps America should not have engaged Japan in a war after Pearl
Harbor – because after all that really
made them angry.
It is an interesting development, but I fail to see the meaningful impact of the information, specifically because it means both good and bad things
for victory in an ongoing military operation, which historically speaking, has always been the result of the development.
It is not exactly the silver bullet people want it to be as a reason to leave Iraq, which is strange in its own way, because if it was the silver
bullet people seem to want it to be, that statement would imply people of some mythical town known as Realityville want the US to lose the war, want
Iraq to have a civil war, and are cheerleading for those events to happen.