It means it is entirely impractical to assume we can wave our magic wand and freedom will reign around the world.
Actually, we can ... we have the capability to completely negate every dictator in the world ... we just don't have the political will. The current Pentagon estimate for the complete subjugation of the Middle East - from Syria to Pakistan - is 2.6 years. THAT is the tactical military solution. But, just as we did in Viet Nam, and as we did in Iraq, our civilian leadership is incapable managing the result.
I am not willing to send people to war in essentially every corner of the globe for the sole notion of "spreading freedom" - that is absolutely correct.
Then, I would suggest that you fib when you say that you are committed to freedom and democracy. What you actually meant to say was you're all for those things as long as you got it, but you don't believe that everybody else is granted those inalienable rights.
If you think France helped us because of a desire to spread freedom and democracy then I might suggest picking up a history book.
Did I say that? Nope - I merely cited several examples where the spread of human freedom must be done through fostering, and assisting, those very people denied those freedoms. Those subjugated by tyrants and dictators seek freedom - but do not have the wherewithal to seize the freedoms. It's really convenient for you to complain about your loss of freedoms here in the US, and yet, you are an active participant in denying those rights to others. Your inaction contributes to their serfdom just as assuredly as the actions of their masters.
I have already stated I support international action to further our own interests, an idea I regularly comment on in these threads. But simply stating "spreading democracy" is not sufficient.
I rest my case ... you have made it for me. It's okay to go shoot up some other country as long as you get something out of it, but you don't believe in helping people to be free. Your selfishness is appalling, but not surprising. I suppose if they offered to pay you, you would feel differently?
The "war" is already on in countless nations all over the world. Are you as enthusiastic about demanding boots on the ground there? Why is Iraq different? And you might note I already stated I would fully back airstrikes to degrade ISIS.
As already noted, I'd be in favor of airstrikes in this case. Just because you "support freedom" doesn't mean you blindly charge ahead and ignore realities on the ground. If we want to have any real success, we must strategically engage based on the realities on the ground - not the reality we wish was on the ground.
So ... you're willing to sponsor airstrikes, but nothing more? THAT is the kind of superficial thinking that afflicts our leadership today. "We'll help, as long as it doesn't cost us anything. We're willing to parade in and be the big brother ... but we sure as hell aren't going to help you fight the fight. We'll give you slingshots, but you don't get our best weapons. When the going gets tough, we're outta here! Oh, by the way, what's in it for us?"
Some people try to paint things in shades of gray - but when it comes to war, it is truly black or white. You either win, or you lose ... there is no in-between. This is what you, and the current administration, don't understand. You want to kill them - just a little. You want to defeat them - well, a little bit, anyway. But, you ain't willing to put your ass on the line for somebody else's freedom. If you aren't willing to do that, what right do you have to ask me to put my ass on the line for yours? If you aren't willing to go the whole way, don't take the first step.
Germany declared war on us actually. And in terms of Iraq, we "helped" them for over a decade at a major cost, and guess what - their ELECTED GOVERNMENT ASKED US TO LEAVE, when they proved unable to agree on a new status of forces agreement.
I strongly suggest you review the SOFA negotiations - you are spouting the current administration's spin - and, believe me, it isn't even close.
I'm glad this is your opinion, but you don't speak for the whole military.
Actually, as a 20 year veteran, with two tours in Viet Nam, 14 months in a POW camp, wounded at the battle of Hue, 4 years assigned to the Pentagon, 4 trips to Iraq, and 2 to Afghanistan (in support of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence), I DO believe I can speak, with some authority, for the whole military.
