> The Pew Charitable Trust surveys come on a regular basis.
These numbers agree with Polls by the Economist amongst other sources.
This compares to about 53% after the Afghanistan invasion. The core
question, however, is:
Are we better off for invading Iraq? I think by my key factors we're not:
1.) Creating new terrorists, the so called "hearts and minds". Those
in the region (King of Jordan, Prime Minister of Pakistan) have
explicitly said no. Not only that, but they've described how the war
has inflamed radical Muslims and that has balloned al Queda
recruitment and created new al Queda-like groups. The summary is that
those in the region are saying things have never been worse, and
hatred towards America has never been worse. (BTW - al Jazera is good
source. They be "biased" but that doesn't discredit everything they
say)
2.) American Military Power. Certainly our credibility with our
allies, the UN, and others has been damaged. We've lost our moral
high ground and intelligence credibility. Further, we've
over-extended our military and are increasing our debt. There's a
theory from British scholars that says one of Mr. Bin Laden's
strategies is to get us to spend ourselves out of existance similar to
what Mr. Reagan forced the USSR to do.
3.) Regional/Energy Stability. The region has never been more
unstable, there's never been more terrorism, and oil prices have never
been higher.
Even most Bush supporters acknowledge events are possibly out of hand.
The only theory I've heard about why all of this is a good thing this
is from Tony Blakely of the Washington Times (a to-the-death Bush
supporter). Basically he says that the chaos is necessary to create
stability. A Financial Times columnist, however, pointed out that
that Leninist view has never worked.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
