Your very premise is offensive and odious: this idea that we can nation build with an invading army, and all “civilized” conversation has to revolve around weighing the pros and cons and engage in some morally detached chin scratching like the good Sensible people that we are. This sort of, “Oh I'm not one of those nasty neocons, devaluing human life. I opposed the invasion, but we're there now and aw shucks whatcha gonna do?” You're providing intellectual safeguard to the idea that we can continue to slaughter these people under the auspices of good intentions. I hate to break it to you, but many of us think anything short of an immediate, unequivocal withdrawal of all U.S. troops is an indefensible position. You want to “help them stabilize and rebuild the rudiments of civil society”? Great, get the U.S. Army the fuck out and Amnesty International in. I'm not sitting here weighing risks with you like we're starting a business venture, dick. And really? The man calling shots on the feasibility of an army sticking around in a country where the overwhelming majority of people just want us out is accusing others of armchair foreign policy? Project much? I'm so very sorry my tone was off-putting, but I suspect mostly put off because you don't like getting called on your bullshit.




