"Is this all worth even one American's life?" It's not worth mine, and I have the feeling it's not worth those of Mitt Romney's five perfectly healthy sons, nor that of anyone related to the current so-called President, nor those of the College Republicans who are so ready to upbraid anyone who even suggests asking the question I just asked.
We went to Iraq because George W. Bush told us Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and he needed to be neutralized, once and for all. Colin Powell threw his reputation for integrity into the trash bin and told the entire world how dangerous Saddam Hussein was, and that he needed to be deposed immediately, if not sooner. That was the sales pitch, not this nonsense about nation-building. If I remember correctly, George W. Bush was loath to "doing windows" himself, if you believed one word of what he said in his 2000 campaign for President.
It's nice to hear that some of the poor bastards who are being tasked with the near-impossible are making a dent. Is it because there are more troops to do the job, or is it because it's too damned hot in July to start a fight? If you recall, "only" 80 American troops died in July of this year, a fact that was trumpeted loudly in the media until someone pointed out the fact that this is nearly double the number that died the previous July. The truth is, the little field trip on which our elected representatives have recently been taken was made possible at a high cost, too high in my opinion.
So now Congress will get together with Gen. Petraeus next month and discuss "progress." Of course there will be progress. How could there not be any progress? The real question, the one that will probably not be asked by anyone other than those considered to be raving moonbats, is whether the degree of progress justifies the cost. I think not, but who the hell am I?