Obama and this nation welcome the protests in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya as democracy at its finest. The will of the people is on display in Capitols all across the Mideast and we condemn any dictator who attempts to suppress them. We're even threatening to put Gaddafi on trial in the Hague for the death of several hundred protestors. My question though: when do protestors officially become insurgents?
We're in out 10th year of occupation in Afghanistan and about to begin our 9th year in Iraq. I can't imagine we're still fighting the Al Qaeda that attacked us on September 11, 2001. If we are then we need to seriously consider how much money we waste on our military if we can't defeat an enemy who live in caves and commute by donkey.
Every day we hear about our progress fighting insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. But whats the difference between an insurgent and a protestor? The US Government acknowledges the overwhelming corruption in these two countries by the top "elected" officials. Why are Iraqis and Afghanis not free to protest and over throw their governments like the rest of the middle east? How can the US condemn the leaders in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya while supporting the corrupt leadership in Iraq and Afghanistan?
We must stay in Iraq and Afghanistan until we build up a strong government to avoid Al Qaeda from coming in and filling the vacuum. By this logic aren't we forced to enter Egypt, Tunisia and Libya as well to ensure they too build a strong government uninfluenced by Al Qaeda? The protests in these Middle East countries completely destroy our own justification for remaining in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, why can't we just go home, Obama? Why does this administration continue the disastrous and costly policies of the previous criminal administration? How can we suggest trying Gaddafi for crimes against humanity with a straight face?