More of SOFA

In retrospect, I feel I need to elaborate more on the subject. If anyone remembers, we installed an interum government in Iraq, then we publicized the fact that there were free elections to establish a democratically elected government, under the idea of "spreading democracy." So, in the spirit of retrospect, someone is now claiming that we should have not left. If we had not left, we would have had to taken away the power and respect we had for the very democratic mechanisms that we had already championed, as we would have had to disregard the Iraqi government's ideas for a SOFA. And now, we think we know it all, and we think it was so simple to just stay there, when in fact staying there would have been equivalent to another invasion of the very government we championed as an example of our efforts to “spread democracy.” Should we have taken back our publicity, our message, and just said “well, we loved your elections, they were very pretty, but we don’t think you making the right decisions here. So were going to establish martial law again, and take you government over again.”

You can’t have it both ways, my friends.

I would certainly love someone to explain this disconnect to me. I am not trying to be an A-hole here, I am only proposing a situation where we are not considering international relations and issues when we make blanket statements that over on a + or - issue. Thanks for your comments.