maybe you'd care to tell me what arm chair quarterbacking actually means in this context ?
The end game in iraq ? Well, honestly, a couple of satellites, planes, and weapons inspectors don't sound so bad to me, compared to what has happened there ever since the US-lead invasion. A lot less cheaper, too. With regard to money and loss of life, that is.
Also, since those were UN-lead operations, at least there would have been some kind of legitimization, and the US image in the world would not be as tarnished as it is now. No offense intended.
In the end, we might have reached a situation resembling the one with regard to North Korea. A dictatorship, maybe, but under control of international weapons inspectors, and pressured by economic sanctions. After years of sanctions, that country now begs for food aid, in exchange for the closure of their nuclear facilities. Who says this could not have been achieved in iraq ?
Instead, the US invasion destroyed the lifes of hundreds of thousands of iraqi civilians, cost an unimaginably high amount of money ( that the US could have better used for domestic issues, some say ), and has since resulted in the deaths of more US citizens than were killed on 9/11.
The real irony behind all of this ? The very government that you put in place in iraq may very well one day kick you out, and - through "democratic" elections - may place people in power that really hate the west. Democracy doesn't equal freedom, does it?
I'll say it again: after two wars in 10 years, followed by years of economic sanctions, that country ( iraq ) was a fucking dumpster, and not worth the life of one US soldier.
True, it's easy to say that now, after all what has happened, and with everything that we know today. But does that mean I cannot say it ?
Is it any less true because it is being said in hindsight ?